Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
paperless-mcp

paperless-mcp

by baruchiro
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

get_correspondent

Retrieve a Paperless-NGX correspondent by ID to view its full details, including matching rules.

Instructions

Get a specific correspondent by ID with full details including matching rules.

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": {
      "id": "<id>"
    },
    "name": "get_correspondent"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv2.2.1
    • removedInput schema / additionalProperties
      Removed value: -false
  2. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the response includes full details and matching rules, which is useful behavioral context, but says nothing about error behavior for invalid IDs, permissions, or read-only nature.

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 waste. It is short and efficient, though it could carry slightly more routing information at the same length.

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 a one-parameter read tool with no output schema or annotations, the description conveys the key facts (identifies record by ID, returns full details plus matching rules). It omits error/edge-case behavior but is largely sufficient.

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 0% and there is one parameter. The description identifies the parameter's purpose ('by ID'), which compensates minimally for the single undocumented param, but adds no type or format detail.

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 (Get) and resource (correspondent) with scope ('by ID') and return detail ('full details including matching rules'). This distinguishes it from list_correspondents, though it never names that sibling explicitly.

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 phrase 'by ID' implies the tool is for single-record retrieval versus the list variant, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance or named alternative. Usage is only inferable.

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