Create saved views in Paperless-ngx with custom filter rules and sort settings to organize document lists and speed up access.
Create a new saved view with filter rules and sort configuration.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | ||
| sort_field | No | Field to sort by, e.g. 'created', 'title', 'correspondent__name' | |
| filter_rules | No | ||
| sort_reverse | No | ||
| show_in_sidebar | No | ||
| show_on_dashboard | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v3.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate this is a non-read-only, non-destructive operation, and the description adds no behavioral context beyond the basic creation action. It does not mention persistence side effects, required permissions, uniqueness constraints, or any other behavior that would help an agent anticipate consequences.
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?
One tightly worded sentence with no filler. The action, resource, and primary configuration concepts are front-loaded and every word contributes meaning.
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?
Given six parameters, low schema coverage, no output schema, and no usage guidance, the description is too sparse for an agent to confidently invoke the tool with correct parameters. It omits the required name field and the optional boolean flags, and says nothing about what a successful creation returns.
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?
Schema description coverage is only 17%, so the description needed to compensate for undocumented parameters. It gestures at 'filter rules and sort configuration' but does not explain the required name parameter, the filter_rules object shape, or the meaning of sort_reverse, show_in_sidebar, and show_on_dashboard.
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?
The description names a specific verb ('Create') and resource ('saved view'), and adds the distinguishing content ('filter rules and sort configuration'). It is immediately clear what this tool does and how it differs from list/get/update/delete saved-view siblings.
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?
The verb 'Create a new' implies that this tool is for creating saved views rather than updating or listing them. However, the description does not explicitly state when to prefer it over update_saved_view, list_saved_views, or get_saved_view, nor does it provide any conditions or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.