Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
SapperMCP

SapperMCP

by MasterX1582
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

Sapper Status

sapper_status

Summarizes project and frontier status from the Sapper store, helping you review assessment progress and choose the next action.

Instructions

Project + frontier summary text (like sapper status).

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_status"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
storeNo.sapper

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

C2.1/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It implies a read-only inspection via the CLI analogy but never states that it is non-destructive, what permissions or repo state it requires, whether it reads from the .sapper store, or how large the output is.

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 a single short, front-loaded phrase with no wasted words, which is structurally fine. However, the brevity comes at the cost of substance rather than being efficient communication.

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, but the definition still leaves the store parameter, the read-only nature, and the distinction from sapper_frontier entirely unaddressed. For a status tool in a large sibling namespace, this is under-specified.

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% for the single `store` parameter (default ".sapper"), and the description adds nothing about what that path means or when to override it. With no parameter documentation in the schema, the description needed to compensate and does not.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose2/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

"Project + frontier summary text" mostly restates the name (sapper_status) and the title (Sapper Status) without a distinct verb+resource framing. It hints at output content (a summary) but does not differentiate from siblings like sapper_frontier or get_desktop_status, so an agent cannot tell exactly what this reports on.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of when to prefer sapper_frontier or other status siblings. The parenthetical reference to the `sapper status` CLI is the only contextual anchor and it assumes familiarity with an external tool.

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