Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
SapperMCP

SapperMCP

by MasterX1582
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

Sapper Release

sapper_release

Releases a claimed intent by ID back to open status, enabling other workers to claim it again.

Instructions

Release a claimed intent back to open.

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": {
      "id": "<id>"
    },
    "name": "sapper_release"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYes
storeNo.sapper
workerNo

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 provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the core state transition (claimed to open), but says nothing about permissions, idempotency, what happens if the intent is not claimed, or how the worker and store parameters affect behavior.

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?

The single sentence is front-loaded and free of wasted wording, but it is under-specified for a mutation tool with three undocumented parameters and no annotations.

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. However, with no annotations, zero percent schema description coverage, and a mutation that changes shared state, the description is too thin to prepare an agent for correct invocation and edge cases.

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% and the description does not mention any of the three parameters (id, store, worker). An agent must infer from the input schema alone that 'id' identifies the claimed intent; the description adds no parameter meaning.

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?

The description states a specific verb and resource: 'Release a claimed intent back to open.' It clearly identifies a state transition from claimed to open, which is distinguishable from siblings like sapper_complete or sapper_done. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from those alternatives, but the core purpose is clear.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

Usage is implied: use this when you have claimed an intent but need to return it to the open pool rather than completing it. There is no explicit guidance on when not to use it, prerequisites, or how it relates to sapper_claim, sapper_complete, or sapper_done.

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