Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
SapperMCP

SapperMCP

by MasterX1582
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

Sapper View

sapper_view

Render an interactive HTML graph visualization and save a self-contained snapshot file; optionally return the HTML in the response for review or sharing.

Instructions

Render the interactive HTML graph visualization (like sapper view). Writes a self-contained snapshot file; set return_html=True to also get the HTML in the response.

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_view"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
outNo
storeNo.sapper
return_htmlNo

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations at all, the description still carries meaningful behavior: it discloses the side effect (a snapshot file is written), characterizes it as self-contained, and explains what return_html changes about the response. It leaves gaps around overwrite behavior, output location defaults, and whether anything is opened or served, which matters for an unannotated tool with a write side effect.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with what the tool produces, then the behavioral detail. The backtick-quoted CLI reference is the only mildly expendable element; nothing else is padding.

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?

The output schema means return values need not be described, which the definition correctly avoids. However, for a write-side-effect tool with zero annotation coverage and 0% parameter documentation, two of three parameters and the overwrite/output-path semantics are left entirely unexplained.

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: only return_html is explained. The `out` and `store` parameters (including the default ".sapper" store) are never mentioned, and the sentence about writing a snapshot file gestures at an output path without naming or clarifying the parameter.

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?

Uses a specific verb ("Render") tied to a specific resource ("the interactive HTML graph visualization") and anchors it to the known CLI equivalent (`sapper view`). It stops short of distinguishing itself from graph-adjacent siblings like sapper_graph or sapper_show, so an agent gets clarity on what it does but not on why it isn't one of those.

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?

The `sapper view` parallel implies the use case is a visual/graph inspection, and the return_html note implies an in-conversation vs on-disk choice. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative tool, so the guidance is only implied.

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