bulk_edit_correspondentsApply bulk operations to multiple correspondents at once, simplifying management of selected correspondent records in Paperless-NGX.
Apply a bulk operation to a set of correspondents.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ids | Yes | ||
| operation | Yes | ||
| parameters | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already mark this as destructive and non-idempotent, but the description adds no behavioral context such as consequences, scope of changes, or whether the operation is reversible. The open-world hint and free-form 'parameters' object suggest unknowns, but the description does not warn or clarify them.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with no filler, so it is brief and readable. However, the brevity results from under-specification rather than efficient communication, since it omits operation vocabulary and parameter semantics.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a destructive bulk operation with an open-world parameter object, no enum values, and zero schema description coverage, this description is severely inadequate. An agent cannot determine valid operations, expected parameter shapes, or the scope of side effects, making successful invocation mostly guesswork.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description needed to explain 'operation', 'ids', and 'parameters'. It provides none of that: 'operation' has no documented values, 'parameters' is an unconstrained object, and the description does not compensate for any of the schema's omissions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description identifies a resource ('correspondents') and a general verb ('apply a bulk operation'), but 'bulk operation' is vague and essentially restates the title. It does not say what operations are possible or how this differs from sibling bulk_edit_* tools beyond the noun in the name.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus single-resource alternatives like update_correspondent or delete_correspondent, or versus sibling bulk_edit_* tools. The intended usage must be inferred entirely from the tool name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.