Retrieve a Paperless-NGX document by ID to view its correspondent, type, tags, and custom fields. Content is excluded by default; use the content tool when needed.
Get a specific document by ID with full details including correspondent, document type, tags, and custom fields. Note: Document content is excluded from results by default. Use 'get_document_content' to retrieve content when needed.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.2.1Input schema / additionalPropertiesRemoved value: -falsev1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that document content is omitted by default, which is real behavioral information beyond the schema, but it says nothing about permissions, error behavior for invalid IDs, or whether the result is cached/fresh.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences, zero filler, and the most important constraint (content excluded, use the sibling tool) is front-loaded right after the purpose statement.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no output schema and no annotations, the description compensates by enumerating the returned metadata fields and flagging the excluded content field. That covers most of what an agent needs for a single-parameter read tool; only input format and failure behavior remain unstated.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
There is one parameter (id) with 0% schema description coverage. The description implies the argument is a document identifier via 'by ID', which adds marginal meaning, but does not state expected format (the schema type is number) or whether it accepts other identifiers. Adequate but thin for a fully undocumented parameter.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific verb (get) and resource (document by ID) and enumerates the shape of what is returned: correspondent, document type, tags, custom fields. It also explicitly distinguishes itself from get_document_content, so an agent can route correctly without opening any schema.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
It names the primary alternative (get_document_content) and the exact condition that selects it (content excluded by default). It does not address when to use this versus list_documents, query_documents, or search_documents, but the content-vs-metadata split is the highest-value distinction and it is stated explicitly.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.