Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
SapperMCP

SapperMCP

by MasterX1582
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

Sapper Hint

sapper_hint

Add or list human hints that guide agents during security assessment and debugging tasks.

Instructions

Add or list human hints for the agents (like sapper hint).

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_hint"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
listNo
storeNo.sapper
contentNo
creatorNomcp

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

C2.2/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the entire behavioral burden and does very little with it. It does not say where hints are persisted, what the '.sapper' store means, who may add hints, whether hints can be removed or overwritten, or what 'creator' implies about attribution.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

It is a single short sentence with no wasted clauses, so it is concise, but it is under-specified rather than efficient. The trailing parenthetical takes up space without adding information the caller can act on.

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

Completeness2/5

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 explained, but that is the only gap covered. For a four-parameter tool with zero annotation coverage and two distinct operating modes, the description omits the mechanics an agent needs in order to choose a mode and supply arguments correctly.

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

Parameters1/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0% across four parameters, and the description compensates for almost none of it. It gestures at add-versus-list semantics but says nothing about 'store', 'creator', or the format and role of 'content', leaving three of four parameters undefined anywhere.

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

Purpose3/5

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

The verb pair 'Add or list' plus the resource 'human hints' gives a concrete action, but 'hint' is never defined and the parenthetical '(like `sapper hint`)' only points back at a CLI command rather than explaining scope. Nothing distinguishes it from siblings such as sapper_fact, sapper_kb, or sapper_capture, so an agent cannot easily tell when this is the right tool.

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 named alternative. The only clue is the implicit split between the add mode and the list mode, which the caller must infer from the phrase 'Add or list' and the 'list' parameter.

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