Skip to main content
Glama

update_workflow_trigger

Idempotent

Modify selected fields of one Paperless-ngx workflow trigger. Only supplied values are updated, so fetch the trigger first to review its current configuration.

Instructions

Update fields on ONE workflow trigger (PATCH — only fields you supply are changed). Use get_workflow_trigger first to see its current shape.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYes
typeNoTrigger type: 1=consumption started, 2=document added, 3=document updated, 4=scheduled
matchNo
sourcesNoConsumption sources: 1=consume folder, 2=API upload, 3=mail fetch, 4=web UI (default [1,2,3])
filter_pathNoPath pattern, * wildcards allowed
is_insensitiveNo
filter_filenameNoFilename pattern (whole name must match), * wildcards allowed
filter_has_tagsNoDocument has ANY of these tags
filter_mailruleNoOnly documents fetched by this mail rule ID
matching_algorithmNoContent match for `match`: 0=none, 1=any word, 2=all words, 3=exact, 4=regular expression, 5=fuzzy word
filter_has_all_tagsNoDocument has ALL of these tags
filter_has_not_tagsNoDocument has NONE of these tags
schedule_date_fieldNoType 4: date the schedule is based on
schedule_offset_daysNoType 4: days to offset from schedule_date_field
schedule_is_recurringNo
filter_custom_field_queryNoCustom-field filter as a JSON expression passed as a string. A condition is [field, operator, value], where field is the custom field's name or ID. Combine conditions with ["AND", [cond, …]] or ["OR", [cond, …]], and negate with ["NOT", cond]. Valid operators depend on the field's data type (e.g. exact, in, isnull, exists, icontains, gt, gte, lt, lte, range); pick an invalid one and Paperless names the valid ones. Examples: '["Amount", "gte", 100]', '["AND", [["Due", "lt", "2026-10-01"], ["Paid", "exact", false]]]'.
schedule_date_custom_fieldNoType 4 with schedule_date_field=custom_field: the date custom field ID
filter_has_any_storage_pathsNoStorage path is one of these
filter_has_not_storage_pathsNoStorage path is none of these
filter_has_any_correspondentsNoCorrespondent is one of these
filter_has_any_document_typesNoDocument type is one of these
filter_has_not_correspondentsNoCorrespondent is none of these
filter_has_not_document_typesNoDocument type is none of these
schedule_recurring_interval_daysNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv3.2.0

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

The description adds meaningful behavior beyond the annotations by specifying that only supplied fields are changed, which is critical for a PATCH call. It also instructs read-before-write. It does not cover error behavior or permissions, but the annotations already declare idempotence and non-destructiveness.

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?

Two sentences with zero filler: the first sentence states the operation and partial-update behavior, and the second gives a practical prerequisite. Every word 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 complex 24-parameter mutation tool, this description is sufficient: it defines the operation, PATCH semantics, and the pre-read step, while the schema covers parameter meanings and annotations cover idempotence/safety. The absence of an output schema is not critical for invoking the update correctly.

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 79%, so the schema already documents most parameters and their meaning. The description does not add parameter-level detail beyond what the schema provides, and it does not clarify the few undocumented fields, but it also does not need to repeat the schema.

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 uses a specific verb ('Update') and a precise resource ('ONE workflow trigger'), and immediately signals PATCH semantics. This clearly distinguishes it from create_workflow_trigger, delete_workflow_trigger, and update_workflow_action without ambiguity.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description gives a concrete precondition: use get_workflow_trigger first to inspect the current shape. It does not explicitly list alternatives or exclusions, but the context makes the intended workflow clear for an update operation.

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