Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
phabricator-mcp

phabricator-mcp

by freelancer
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

phabricator_paste_search

Read-only

Search Phabricator pastes by full-text query, author, project, status, language, or creation date, and include content or project details in the results.

Instructions

Search Phabricator pastes

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "phabricator_paste_search"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
afterNoCursor for next-page pagination
limitNoMaximum results (max 100)
orderNoResult order
beforeNoCursor for previous-page pagination
queryKeyNoBuilt-in query: "all", "active", "authored"
attachmentsNoData attachments
constraintsNoSearch constraints

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv2.0.19

TDQS

C2.5/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so safety is covered, but the description adds no behavioral context at all — no pagination behavior, no note that attachments must be requested to get paste content, no note on default limits. For a search tool with nested constraints this is a missed opportunity.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

It is a single short phrase with zero waste and fully front-loaded, but the brevity comes from under-specification rather than discipline.

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

Completeness2/5

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

The tool has seven parameters, nested objects (constraints, attachments), pagination cursors, and no output schema. Given that complexity, a bare six-word description is not sufficient to guide correct invocation, even though the schema is well annotated.

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 seven parameters including nested constraints and attachments are documented in the schema. The description contributes nothing, which meets the baseline of 3 when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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

Purpose3/5

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

"Search Phabricator pastes" states a verb and resource, but it essentially restates the tool name phabricator_paste_search and offers no differentiation from siblings like phabricator_document_search or the paste_create/paste_edit tools. It is accurate but adds nothing beyond the identifier.

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 tool versus alternatives, no mention of the queryKey values (all/active/authored) that would select common cases, and no note on prerequisites. The agent must infer everything from the schema.

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