Review your Paperless mail processing rules to see which accounts are imported and how titles, tags, correspondents, and document types are assigned.
List mail rules: which mails Paperless imports from which account, and how it assigns title, tags, correspondent and document type.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page | No | Page number (1-based) | |
| page_size | No | Number of items per page |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v3.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The readOnlyHint annotation already declares the safety profile, so the description only needs to add context. It adds useful domain context about what each rule configures, but does not disclose pagination behavior, ordering, or other behavioral details. This is adequate for a simple read-only list tool.
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 sentence that leads with the action and resource, then adds a clarifying dependent clause. Every word earns its place, and no redundant or filler content exists.
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 simple list tool with two parameters, no output schema, and no nested objects, the description sufficiently explains what the tool returns: the mail rules and their configuration. It could mention pagination default behavior, but the schema-parameter presence makes this a minor gap.
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 input schema already documents both parameters (page and page_size) with clear descriptions and ranges, giving 100% schema coverage. The description adds no parameter-specific information, but with full schema coverage the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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 ('List') and resource ('mail rules'), then elaborates exactly what information each rule contains: the source account and how title, tags, correspondent, and document type are assigned. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like list_mail_accounts and get_mail_rule.
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 conveys that this is the list operation for mail rules, which implicitly tells an agent to use get_mail_rule for a single rule. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over get_mail_rule or how it differs from list_mail_accounts, leaving the routing to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.