paperlessngx-mcp

paperless_tag_document

Read-only

Replace a document's tags with specified tag names. Apply exact tag set to organize documents in Paperless-ngx.

Instructions

PRIVACY TIER 1 (management): Set the tags on a document. Accepts tag NAMES (resolved to IDs internally). This REPLACES the document's tag set with exactly the tags provided. Returns the applied tags. No document content is read or returned.

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": {
      "document_id": "<document_id>",
      "tag_names": "<tag_names>"
    },
    "name": "paperless_tag_document"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`document_id`	Yes	Paperless document ID.
`tag_names`	Yes	Tag names to apply. Unknown names are reported in `unresolved`.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Jun 19, 2026

TDQS

B3.4/5.0

Behavior1/5

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

The description states the tool 'Sets' tags and 'REPLACES' the tag set, indicating a mutation, but annotations declare readOnlyHint=true. This is a direct contradiction, severely undermining transparency and trust.

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?

The description is three sentences long and front-loaded with the privacy tier. It is concise but could omit 'PRIVACY TIER 1 (management)' as it adds little. Overall, good structure with no unnecessary words.

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 description explains the return value (applied tags) and the resolution of tag names, making it fairly complete given the tool's simplicity. However, the annotation contradiction introduces uncertainty about actual behavior, reducing completeness.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 100%, and the description adds useful context: tag names are resolved to IDs internally, and unknown names are reported in 'unresolved'. This goes beyond the schema, providing clear semantics for each parameter.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description clearly states the tool sets tags on a document, specifies that it accepts tag names resolved to IDs, and emphasizes that it replaces the entire tag set. This is specific and distinguishes from potential alternatives like adding or removing individual tags.

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 description implies usage for setting tags but does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like paperless_suggest_tags or provide when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance. The 'PRIVACY TIER 1 (management)' label is vague.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server