Pastebin MCP Server

Create Paste

create_paste

Create a new Pastebin paste from provided code, with optional title, syntax highlighting, privacy level, and expiration time.

Instructions

Create a new paste on Pastebin.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`code`	Yes	The content of the paste.
`name`	No	Name or title of the paste.
`format`	No	Syntax highlighting format (e.g., 'python', 'javascript').
`private`	No	Privacy level (0=Public, 1=Unlisted, 2=Private). Private requires api_user_key.
`api_dev_key`	No	Your Pastebin Developer API Key.
`expire_date`	No	Expiration time (N=Never, 10M, 1H, 1D, 1W, 2W, 1M, 6M, 1Y). Default is 1H.	1H
`api_user_key`	No	Your Pastebin User Key (from login). Required for private pastes.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Oct 18, 2026

TDQS

C2.4/5.0

Behavior1/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, yet it adds nothing beyond the title. It does not mention authentication requirements, privacy defaults, expiration behavior, or any side effects, leaving the agent with zero behavioral context.

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

Conciseness2/5

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

The description is a single short sentence that is front-loaded and free of filler, but it is severely under-specified for a tool with seven parameters. Conciseness is not the issue; the sentence does not earn its place by conveying necessary information.

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

Completeness1/5

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

Given the tool's complexity (seven parameters, no annotations) and the existence of an output schema, the description is still grossly incomplete. It fails to mention any prerequisite, default behavior, or contextual constraint, leaving the agent reliant entirely on the schema.

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 schema fully documents all seven parameters including privacy levels, expiration formats, and key requirements. The description adds no parameter meaning, which is acceptable at baseline 3 when the schema does all the heavy lifting.

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 ('Create') and resource ('paste on Pastebin'), making the tool's purpose immediately clear. However, it offers no differentiation from sibling tools like delete_paste or list_user_pastes, which is the only reason it falls short of a 5.

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, nor any mention of prerequisites such as needing an api_dev_key or api_user_key. The agent must infer usage entirely from the schema and sibling names.

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

Deploy Server