Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
SapperMCP

SapperMCP

by MasterX1582
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

Sapper Validate

sapper_validate

Checks the fact-intent graph for integrity issues and returns a list of errors; an empty list confirms the graph is valid.

Instructions

Integrity-check the graph; returns a list of errors (empty = valid).

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_validate"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
storeNo.sapper

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?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it only says it returns errors. It does not state whether validation is read-only, whether it can mutate or repair the graph, what permissions are needed, or how errors are formatted beyond the existence of a list.

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 description is a single compact sentence with the core action and result front-loaded, and no filler. Nothing could be removed without losing information.

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?

For a simple validator with an output schema, the description covers the core outcome well enough. However, without annotations or parameter documentation, it omits side-effect behavior and the meaning of 'store', leaving relevant gaps for an agent to resolve.

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

Parameters1/5

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

There is one optional parameter, 'store', with 0% schema description coverage, and the description never mentions it. The agent must infer that 'store' is a directory or storage location from the default '.sapper' alone, so the description adds no semantic meaning.

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 verb 'Integrity-check' and resource 'the graph' give a clear, specific purpose, and the result semantics ('empty = valid') reinforce it. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like sapper_graph or sapper_status, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

The description implies validation but gives no when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or alternatives among the many sapper_* tools. An agent gets no explicit context for choosing this over graph inspection or status checks.

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