Find shared document links in Paperless-NGX by filtering on creation or expiration date and controlling page size.
List all share links with optional filtering by creation date, expiration date, and pagination.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page | No | Page number (1-based) | |
| ordering | No | ||
| 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?
Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds only a generic 'List all' scope plus optional filtering. More importantly, it claims filtering by creation date and expiration date, but no such parameters exist in the input schema, which is misleading about the tool's actual behavior.
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?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. However, its conciseness is achieved at the cost of accuracy, since the date-filter claim is unsupported by the schema.
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, the description is short, but it leaves the 'ordering' parameter unexplained, makes unsupported filter claims, and offers no clarification about how this tool relates to list_document_share_links. Without an output schema, an agent gets an incomplete picture of how to call it correctly.
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 67%, with page and page_size documented. The description adds little beyond mentioning pagination, and it introduces date-filter parameters that have no schema counterparts. The undocumented 'ordering' parameter is not explained at all.
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 clear verb+resource ('List all share links') and notes optional filtering and pagination. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the closely named sibling list_document_share_links, though 'all' implies a broader scope.
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?
No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_document_share_links. The description only states what the tool does, not the conditions under which it should be selected.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.