Skip to main content
Glama
baruchiro

paperless-mcp

by baruchiro
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

bulk_edit_correspondents

Bulk update or delete Paperless-NGX correspondents: set view/change permissions for users or groups, or permanently remove selected correspondents after confirmation.

Instructions

Bulk edit correspondents. ⚠️ WARNING: 'delete' operation permanently removes correspondents from the entire system.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
mergeNo
ownerNo
confirmNoMust be true when operation is 'delete' to confirm destructive operation
operationYes
permissionsNo
correspondent_idsYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed5 schema fields changedv2.2.1
    • removedInput schema / additionalProperties
      Removed value: -false
    • addedInput schema / properties / confirm
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Must be true when operation is 'delete' to confirm destructive operation",
+  "type": "boolean"
+}
    • removedInput schema / properties / permissions / additionalProperties
      Removed value: -false
    • removedInput schema / properties / permissions / properties / change / additionalProperties
      Removed value: -false
    • removedInput schema / properties / permissions / properties / view / additionalProperties
      Removed value: -false
  2. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

C2.7/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the safety burden and does disclose that the 'delete' operation permanently removes correspondents system-wide, which is genuinely useful. However, it says nothing about the other operation (set_permissions), permission/auth requirements, or that a confirm flag is mandatory, leaving important behavior undisclosed.

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 with the destructive warning front-loaded and no wasted words. Efficient, though it is under-informative rather than over-specified.

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?

For a 6-parameter destructive bulk tool with nested objects, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is far too thin. It covers only the delete hazard and omits the second operation, parameter meanings, and return behavior.

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 only 17%, so the description should compensate but instead mentions no parameters at all. The nested permissions object, merge, owner, and even the enum values are left unexplained in both the description and largely the schema.

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

Purpose3/5

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

The description states a verb ('bulk edit') and resource ('correspondents'), but this is essentially a restatement of the tool name. It signals the bulk scope, which distinguishes it from the singular update_correspondent/delete_correspondent siblings, but adds little beyond that.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus the singular update_correspondent or delete_correspondent, or versus other bulk_edit_* tools. The only hint is the embedded warning about the delete operation; no prerequisites or alternative selection criteria are given.

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