Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
SapperMCP

SapperMCP

by MasterX1582
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

Sapper Graph

sapper_graph

Dump the whole graph as structured JSON or CLI text to inspect relationships and findings for security assessment and debugging.

Instructions

Dump the whole graph. format=json gives the structured view, format=text renders the CLI text form.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "sapper_graph"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
storeNo.sapper
formatNojson

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden. It implies a read-only full dump but never states that it is non-destructive, how large the output can be, or whether it requires an initialized store — meaningful context for a whole-graph dump.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two short sentences with the core action front-loaded and no filler. Format details follow logically, though the description could have used the space to cover the undocumented `store` parameter instead.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and the format options are covered. With no annotations and an undocumented `store` parameter, the definition is adequate but leaves real gaps for an agent invoking it.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description usefully explains the two `format` values (json = structured view, text = CLI text form) that the schema leaves undocumented, including the lack of an enum. However, the `store` parameter (defaulting to ".sapper") gets no explanation, so compensation is only partial.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

"Dump the whole graph" gives a concrete verb (dump) and resource (graph) plus the scope (whole), so an agent can tell this is a full-graph read rather than a filtered query. It does not name any sibling or clarify what kind of graph is being dumped, so differentiation is left implicit.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no alternative tool is named for cases where the agent wants a partial or filtered view. Usage is only implied by the phrase "the whole graph".

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server

Other Tools