Skip to main content
Glama

Sapper Report

sapper_report

Generate a markdown engagement report from security assessment graph data—including flags, typed findings, work log, timeline, and hints—then write it to a file or return it.

Instructions

Generate a markdown engagement report from the graph: summary, flag ledger, typed findings (hosts/services/creds/vulns/loot), work log, timeline, hints. Writes out (default /../sapper-report.md) and returns the markdown.

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_report"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
outNo
storeNo.sapper
titleNo
include_docsNo

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Behavior3/5

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 does disclose the key behavioral fact that this writes a file and where the default path resolves relative to the store, but says nothing about overwrite/append semantics, prerequisites (must the store/graph exist?), or permissions.

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?

One dense, front-loaded sentence with a section list that carries real information and no filler. The line wrapping makes it slightly harder to scan than necessary, but nothing is wasted.

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-value explanation is redundant rather than required. The gaps that matter are the two undocumented parameters and the absent overwrite/precondition behavior for a tool that writes a file.

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 description coverage is 0% across four parameters, so the description must compensate and largely does not. It explains only 'out' and its default derivation, leaving 'title' and 'include_docs' (which plausibly controls whether docs are pulled into the report) entirely undefined anywhere.

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 ('Generate a markdown engagement report from the graph') and enumerates the report sections, so the agent knows exactly what artifact comes out. It does not contrast itself with plausible near-neighbors like sapper_doc or sapper_show, so it falls short of full sibling differentiation.

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?

The phrase 'engagement report' implies an end-of-engagement recap, which hints at when to call it, but there is no explicit when/when-not guidance and no named alternative for lighter-weight output.

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