Skip to main content
Glama
bruhsb
by bruhsb

paperclip_list_issue_feedback_traces

Read-only

Retrieve feedback traces for a single issue, applying filters by target type, vote, status, date range, shared status, and payload inclusion. Returns paginated results.

Instructions

⚠ Board-only: List feedback traces scoped to a single issue, with optional filters.

Args:

  • issueId: string — Issue ID or identifier (example: "PAP-42")

  • targetType: string (optional) — Filter by target type (example: "comment")

  • vote: string (optional) — Filter by vote value (example: "up", "down")

  • status: string (optional) — Filter by trace status (example: "pending", "resolved")

  • from: string (optional) — ISO 8601 datetime lower bound (createdAt >=)

  • to: string (optional) — ISO 8601 datetime upper bound (createdAt <=)

  • sharedOnly: boolean (optional) — Return only shared traces

  • includePayload: boolean (optional) — Include full trace payload in response

  • response_format: 'markdown' | 'json' (optional) — Output format (default: markdown)

  • limit: number (optional) — Max traces per page, 1–100 (default 50)

  • offset: number (optional) — Number of traces to skip (default 0)

Returns: Pagination envelope { items: FeedbackTrace[], total, count, offset, limit, has_more, next_offset }.

Examples:

  • Use when: inspecting all feedback traces attached to a specific issue

  • Don't use when: you need traces across the company — use paperclip_list_feedback_traces instead

Error Handling:

  • 401: authentication failed → check PAPERCLIP_API_KEY

  • 403: permission denied → board-only endpoint, requires board API key

  • 404: issue not found → verify issueId with paperclip_list_issues

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
issueIdYesIssue ID or identifier (e.g. PAP-42)
targetTypeNoFilter by target type (e.g. 'issue', 'comment')
voteNoFilter by vote value (e.g. 'up', 'down')
statusNoFilter by trace status (e.g. 'pending', 'resolved')
fromNoISO 8601 datetime — return traces created at or after this timestamp
toNoISO 8601 datetime — return traces created at or before this timestamp
sharedOnlyNoWhen true, return only traces marked as shared
includePayloadNoWhen true, include full trace payload in response
response_formatYesOutput format: 'markdown' (default, human-readable) or 'json' (structured)markdown
limitYesMax traces per page (1–100, default 50)
offsetYesNumber of traces to skip (default 0)
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description's mention of board-only scope and error handling (auth, permissions) adds useful context beyond annotations. It also describes the pagination envelope. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

The description is well-structured with clear sections (Args, Returns, Examples, Error Handling). It is sufficiently detailed without being overly verbose, though some parameter repetitions could be trimmed.

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

Completeness5/5

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

Given the 11 parameters and no output schema, the description comprehensively covers returns (pagination envelope), error handling (401, 403, 404), and filtering options. It provides complete context for an agent to use the tool correctly.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add new meaning beyond what the schema already provides; it essentially repeats the parameter descriptions and examples. Therefore, no extra value for parameter semantics.

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 clearly states the tool lists feedback traces scoped to a single issue with optional filters. It distinguishes from the sibling paperclip_list_feedback_traces by specifying scoping, and the 'Don't use when' section explicitly differentiates usage.

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?

The description provides explicit 'Use when' and 'Don't use when' examples, including a direct reference to the alternative sibling tool paperclip_list_feedback_traces. This gives clear guidance on when to invoke this tool versus others.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/bruhsb/paperclip-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server