Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
SapperMCP

SapperMCP

by MasterX1582
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

Sapper Teardown

sapper_teardown

Removes Sapper hooks and AGENTS.md from a project to clean up integration. Set purge to true to also delete .sapper graph data, which is destructive and cannot be undone.

Instructions

Remove sapper hooks + its AGENTS.md from a project. purge=True also deletes the .sapper/ graph data (destructive).

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": {
      "project_dir": "<project_dir>"
    },
    "name": "sapper_teardown"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
purgeNo
storeNo.sapper
project_dirYes

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations supplied, the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It does disclose the key risk — that purge=True is destructive and deletes .sapper/ graph data — which is genuinely useful beyond the schema. However, it says nothing about irreversibility, whether AGENTS.md content is lost or merged, idempotency when hooks are absent, or any permission requirements for a mutating filesystem operation.

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?

Two tight sentences with the scope stated first and the dangerous flag second — good front-loading and zero filler. Minor ambiguity remains in "its AGENTS.md" (project-level vs. tool-level) and the abrupt line break.

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 values need not be described. But for a destructive, annotation-free teardown tool, the definition should at minimum state that removed hooks/AGENTS.md are not restored and clarify what each parameter controls; as written it covers only the headline behavior and the purge risk.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0% for three parameters, so the description must compensate. It explains purge (True also deletes .sapper/ graph data) and gestures at the .sapper path, but never links that to the `store` parameter or explains that `store` overrides the default directory, and `project_dir` is left entirely implicit. Partial compensation only.

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 ("Remove") and enumerates exactly what is removed: sapper hooks, the project's AGENTS.md, and optionally the .sapper/ graph data. That is far more informative than the bare title "Sapper Teardown" and implicitly contrasts with install-side siblings like sapper_setup/sapper_init, though it never names an alternative explicitly.

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 only implied: an agent can infer this is the uninstall/cleanup counterpart to setup, and the conditional "purge=True also deletes... (destructive)" gives guidance about which mode to choose. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use statement, no prerequisite (e.g. run before removing the project, or that hooks must exist), and no named alternative.

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