Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
SapperMCP

SapperMCP

by MasterX1582
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

Sapper Show

sapper_show

Retrieves and displays project, fact, or intent records as JSON from a Sapper store so you can inspect security assessment data by entity and optional ID.

Instructions

Show project | fact | intent as JSON.

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": {
      "entity": "<entity>"
    },
    "name": "sapper_show"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idNo
storeNo.sapper
entityYes

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

C2.4/5.0
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 burden. It never says whether the call is read-only, what happens when `id` is omitted (default null), what the `.sapper` store refers to, or what failure looks like when an id does not exist. "as JSON" adds nothing an output schema does not already cover.

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 short and front-loaded, with zero filler, but that brevity comes at the cost of clarity: the pipe-delimited grammar is ambiguous notation rather than a sentence, and the meaning of `<id>` sits outside the pipe pattern.

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 shape need not be described, but a multi-entity read tool with three undocumented parameters and no annotations leaves the agent without the information needed to choose an `entity` value confidently or understand the `store` and null-`id` behavior.

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 three parameters, so the description must compensate and largely does not. It hints at the values accepted by `entity` (project, fact, intent), which is genuinely useful, but `id` and `store` are left completely unexplained, including when `id` may be null versus required.

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 is generic ("Show") and the object is expressed in a cryptic pipe notation, "project | fact <id> | intent <id>", which the agent must decode into the required `entity` enum. The intent (retrieve one of three entity kinds as JSON) is inferable, but the description does not plainly state it and offers no differentiation from the many sibling retrieval tools such as sapper_fact or sapper_intent.

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 statement of when to use this tool, when not to, or which sibling it replaces. The agent has to guess whether this is a dump/export tool versus the per-entity tools like sapper_fact or sapper_intent.

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