Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
SapperMCP

SapperMCP

by MasterX1582
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

Sapper Intent

sapper_intent

Create a work intent from existing fact IDs and a description, linking new tasks to supporting facts for traceable security assessment workflows.

Instructions

Add an intent - a unit of work derived from existing facts (like sapper intent --from f001,f002).

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "from_ids": "<from_ids>",
      "description": "<description>"
    },
    "name": "sapper_intent"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
docNo
storeNo.sapper
titleNo
confirmNorequire human confirmation before it can be worked
creatorNomcp
doc_fileNo
from_idsYesfact ids this intent builds on
descriptionYes

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

C2.7/5.0
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 behavioral burden. 'Add' implies a mutation that persists to the store, but the description does not disclose side effects, whether the intent is created in a draft or claimable state, what 'confirm' changes, or how it interacts with the default '.sapper' store. For a write tool with zero annotation coverage this is a substantial gap.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with a short illustrative parenthetical; nothing is padded or redundant. Brevity is appropriate, though the space saved is spent on a CLI analogy rather than on the undocumented parameters.

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 eight-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and only 25% schema coverage needs considerably more than one sentence. The existence of an output schema relieves the description of explaining return values, but the missing guidance on store, doc/doc_file, and confirmation semantics leaves an agent under-equipped to call this correctly.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema coverage is only 25%, so the description must compensate, and it largely does not. The parenthetical example clarifies the shape of from_ids (a comma-separated id list), but six parameters — doc, doc_file, store, title, creator, description — receive no explanation beyond their bare schema defaults, leaving the relationship between doc and doc_file and the meaning of title entirely unexplained.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Add an intent') and goes further by defining an intent as 'a unit of work derived from existing facts', which distinguishes it conceptually from sibling fact-oriented tools like sapper_fact. It does not explicitly contrast with other creation-adjacent siblings, but the core purpose is unambiguous.

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?

The only guidance is a CLI analogy ('like `sapper intent --from f001,f002`'), which illustrates the from_ids pattern but never says when to create an intent versus a fact or other artifact. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative-tool routing.

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