phabricator-mcp

phabricator_paste_create

Create a new Phabricator paste with content, optional title, syntax highlighting language, status, project tags, and subscriber PHIDs for sharing code or text snippets.

Instructions

Create a new Phabricator paste

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "content": "<content>"
    },
    "name": "phabricator_paste_create"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`title`	No	Paste title
`status`	No	Status: active or archived
`content`	Yes	Paste content
`language`	No	Syntax highlighting language
`addProjectPHIDs`	No	Project PHIDs to tag
`addSubscriberPHIDs`	No	Subscriber PHIDs to add

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv2.0.19May 29, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the mutation safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that: it does not say what is returned (e.g. paste ID/PHID), whether content is required, or any permission requirements for creating a paste.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler; nothing redundant is included. It is arguably too terse rather than wasteful, but on the conciseness axis it scores well.

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

Completeness3/5

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

With a fully documented schema and annotations present, the minimum is satisfied. However, for a creation tool with no output schema, the description leaves key questions open: what the response contains, whether the paste is immediately visible/archived by default, and any auth constraints.

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 all six parameters (title, status, content, language, addProjectPHIDs, addSubscriberPHIDs) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb and resource ('Create a new Phabricator paste'), so the agent knows exactly what the tool does. It does not, however, distinguish it from siblings like phabricator_paste_edit or phabricator_paste_search, or note what distinguishes creation from editing an existing paste.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

There is no guidance on when to use this versus phabricator_paste_edit (updating an existing paste) or phabricator_paste_search. No prerequisites, permissions, or context for invocation are mentioned; the agent must infer usage purely from the name.

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

Deploy Server