Skip to main content
Glama
cubinet-code

paperless-ngx-mcp

by cubinet-code
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

update_document

Idempotent

Update a single document's metadata—title, tags, correspondent, custom fields, and more—without changing unspecified fields.

Instructions

Update fields on ONE document (PATCH — only fields you supply are changed). Editable fields: title, correspondent, document_type, storage_path, tags (replaces the array), content (raw searchable text), created (document date, YYYY-MM-DD), archive_serial_number, owner, custom_fields. For applying the same change to MANY documents, see edit_documents_bulk. To add a comment/annotation rather than change a field, see create_document_note.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesThe ID of the document to update
tagsNoArray of tag IDs to assign to the document
ownerNoThe ID of the user who owns the document
titleNoThe new title for the document (max 128 characters)
contentNoThe raw text content of the document (used for searching)
createdNoThe creation date in YYYY-MM-DD format
storage_pathNoThe ID of the storage path to assign
correspondentNoThe ID of the correspondent to assign
custom_fieldsNoArray of custom field values to assign
document_typeNoThe ID of the document type to assign
archive_serial_numberNoThe archive serial number (0-4294967295)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv3.2.0

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the description builds on that. It adds PATCH behavior (only supplied fields change) and notes that tags replaces the array, plus the exact date format and custom field value conventions. This is valuable context beyond the annotations, though it does not address failure modes or permissions.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three sentences: the first establishes the core operation and PATCH semantics, the second lists editable fields, and the third points to alternatives. It is front-loaded, information-dense, and every sentence earns its place.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a tool with 11 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the key distinctions (single vs bulk, field change vs note) and the schema covers parameter details. It does not explain the response format, but that is not required given the schema and the tool's nature. It is complete enough for correct invocation.

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 lists editable fields and highlights that tags replaces the array, but the schema already documents every parameter with detailed explanations (including custom field formats). The description adds little beyond a summary, so it does not push the score above 3.

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 starts with a specific verb and resource: 'Update fields on ONE document' and explicitly notes PATCH semantics (only fields you supply are changed). This distinguishes it from bulk edit and comment creation, making the purpose unmistakable.

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?

It clearly states when to use this tool (single document update) and explicitly points to edit_documents_bulk for many documents and create_document_note for adding comments/annotations, providing concrete alternatives and exclusions.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools