Retrieve Paperless-NGX task counts for all, needs_attention, in_progress, and completed statuses. Use this to monitor workflow health, identify failed or unacknowledged tasks, and track progress in one clear summary.
Get task counts: all, needs_attention (failed and unacknowledged), in_progress, completed.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v3.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=true. The description adds genuine behavior by defining 'needs_attention' as failed and unacknowledged and by spelling out the four count groups returned. It does not disclose output shape or potential staleness, but read-only status and the category semantics are the main behavioral facts here.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence that states the operation and then lists the categories in compact form. The parenthetical clarification earns its place and the description contains no filler.
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?
For a zero-parameter, read-only counts tool, the description covers what the counts are and which bucket 'needs_attention' maps to. With no output schema, a slightly more explicit return-shape statement (e.g., field names) could help, but the enumerations make the result predictable enough.
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?
The tool takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter burden for the description to carry; the empty schema is complete. The description is therefore not required to explain parameter meaning, and the category labels it provides are sufficient.
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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('task counts') and enumerates the exact categories returned. It does not explicitly name sibling tools such as get_task_summary or list_tasks, so sibling differentiation is implicit rather than stated.
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 description implies that this is the tool for aggregated status counts, and the category definitions help an agent know what 'needs_attention' includes. However, it provides no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance or alternatives, so an agent must infer the right context from the name and sibling list.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.