Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
sape-mcp

sape-mcp

by sshra
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

sape_call

Invokes any sape.ru XML-RPC API method that lacks a dedicated tool by passing the method name and optional parameters.

Instructions

Универсальный вызов любого метода XML-RPC API sape.ru, для которого нет отдельного инструмента.

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": {
      "method": "<method>"
    },
    "name": "sape_call"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
methodYes
paramsNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
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 disclosure burden. It reveals only that calls are raw XML-RPC passthroughs; it does not say that arbitrary methods may be mutating/destructive, does not mention authentication or API key requirements, rate limits, or how errors surface.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler, and the key constraint (only for methods without a dedicated tool) arrives immediately. It is efficient, though its brevity borders on under-specification rather than tightness.

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?

This is a generic dispatch escape hatch with no annotations, no output schema, and zero parameter documentation, which is the case that most needs description support. Missing method-naming conventions, params shape, response structure, and error behavior leave the agent unable to call it correctly without trial and error.

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%, so the description must compensate and does not. It never explains the expected format of 'method' (e.g. dotted namespace like 'sape.get_balance') or that 'params' is a positional argument array matching the target method's signature.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: a universal XML-RPC call to the sape.ru API. It also distinguishes itself from siblings by scoping to methods that have no dedicated tool, so an agent can tell it apart from get_balance, list_projects, etc.

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 clause 'for which there is no separate tool' implies a fallback ordering: prefer the dedicated siblings, use this only otherwise. However, it never says what to do when the method name is unknown, nor does it give any example of a valid call, leaving the agent to infer usage.

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