Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
paperless-mcp

paperless-mcp

by baruchiro
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

get_document_type

Fetch a document type by ID from Paperless-NGX to view its full details and matching rules. Use it to inspect or verify how a document type is configured.

Instructions

Get a specific document type 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_document_type"
  }
}

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

B3.4/5.0
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 behavioral burden. It helpfully signals that the response includes 'full details including matching rules,' but says nothing about whether this is a safe read, error behavior for invalid IDs, permissions, or rate limits.

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 filler; the core action and scope are stated immediately. It is efficiently sized for a trivial single-parameter getter.

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?

For a simple one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description is minimally sufficient and gestures at return content ('matching rules'). It still leaves the return shape, error cases, and read-only nature unstated.

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?

There is a single required parameter with 0% schema description coverage, so the schema does not document 'id' at all. The description only says 'by ID,' clarifying that the parameter is an identifier but adding no detail on type, format, or expected values.

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 and resource ('Get a specific document type') and nodes its scope by ID, which implicitly separates it from the sibling list_document_types. It does not name a sibling explicitly, so it stops short of the top score.

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 you call this when you already have an identifier and want single-record detail, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusion, and no mention of when to prefer list_document_types or update_document_type instead.

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