Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Paperclip MCP server

Paperclip MCP server

by auralab-dev
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

Raw Paperclip API fallback

paperclip_raw

Call relative API endpoints without dedicated tools using raw HTTP methods; reads return Markdown or snapshot links, mutations return a compact acknowledgement.

Instructions

Fallback for Paperclip endpoints not covered by dedicated tools. Relative same-origin paths only. GET/HEAD return Markdown inline below the configured token threshold and otherwise only a new immutable snapshot path; mutations return only a compact acknowledgement. Prefer dedicated tools.

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": {
      "path": "<path>"
    },
    "name": "paperclip_raw"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
bodyNo
pathYesRelative Paperclip path such as /api/companies/...; external URLs are rejected.
queryNo
methodNoGET
all_fieldsNoFor read responses, keep every returned field in the rendered Markdown. Delivery threshold behavior is unchanged.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.6.0

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

The annotations only provide openWorldHint, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does well by explaining that GET/HEAD return inline Markdown below a token threshold or a new immutable snapshot path above it, and that mutations return only a compact acknowledgement. Error, auth, and rate-limit behavior are not covered, but the core response behavior is transparent.

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?

Three tight sentences front-load the purpose, then the constraint, then the behavioral contract. There is no filler and every sentence earns its place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For an open-ended fallback with no output schema, the description covers scope, path restrictions, response behavior, and sibling precedence. Auth and error details are absent, but they are somewhat endpoint-dependent and thus not critical for a raw fallback tool.

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 coverage is only 40%, and the description adds some method-level meaning by contrasting GET/HEAD vs mutations and by reinforcing the path restriction. However, it does not explain body, query, or all_fields beyond what the schema already offers, leaving a gap for a generic fallback tool with five parameters.

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 states the tool is a raw fallback for Paperclip endpoints not covered by dedicated tools, and it specifies the HTTP surface through relative same-origin paths and method-specific behavior. This clearly distinguishes it from the many dedicated sibling tools on the same API.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It explicitly says 'Prefer dedicated tools' and defines itself as the fallback for endpoints 'not covered by dedicated tools', giving an agent a direct decision rule. It also adds a hard constraint: relative same-origin paths only, with external URLs rejected.

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