Skip to main content
Glama

Sapper Send

sapper_send

Send messages to user-authorized tmux peers via buffer load/paste, enabling coordinated agent communication and debugging across sessions.

Instructions

Send a message to a user-authorized tmux peer via load-buffer/ paste-buffer (like sapper send <peer> <msg>).

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": {
      "peer": "<peer>",
      "message": "<message>"
    },
    "name": "sapper_send"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
cwdNo
rawNo
peerYes
storeNo.sapper
no_logNo
senderNo
channelNo
messageYes

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

C2.8/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the tmux load-buffer/paste-buffer mechanism and the need for a user-authorized peer, but it omits logging behavior despite a no_log parameter, side effects, authorization failure behavior, and other operational details an agent would need.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

The definition is a single front-loaded sentence with no filler. The parenthetical command example is compact and reinforces the syntax without adding bloat.

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?

This is a relatively complex tool with eight parameters and zero schema description coverage. Although an output schema exists, the description still leaves most parameters and key operational behavior undocumented, which is not sufficient for reliable invocation.

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 eight parameters, so the description must compensate. It maps only the command-style peer and message concepts, leaving cwd, raw, store, no_log, sender, and channel entirely unexplained in both schema and description.

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 names a specific verb and resource: sending a message to a user-authorized tmux peer. It also discloses the underlying mechanism, load-buffer/paste-buffer, which helps distinguish it from key/signal sending tools, though it does not explicitly name those siblings.

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?

It gives no explicit guidance on when to use this instead of related tools such as send_key_combo or send_signal, nor any when-not-to-use conditions. The only contextual signal is the 'user-authorized tmux peer' phrase, which implies a prerequisite rather than a usage decision.

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