create_correspondentCreate a correspondent in Paperless to categorize and retrieve documents by sender.
Create a new correspondent.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| body | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| name | Yes | ||
| slug | No | ||
| match | No | ||
| owner | No | ||
| document_count | No | ||
| is_insensitive | No | ||
| user_can_change | No | ||
| matching_algorithm | No | ||
| last_correspondence | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, so the description adds no behavioral insight beyond what is structured. It does not mention uniqueness constraints, side effects of creating a correspondent, defaults for optional fields, or any failure/response behavior. There is no contradiction with annotations, but there is also no added transparency.
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 text is short and free of fluff, but it does not earn its place: it restates the title and contributes no usable information. This is under-specification rather than effective conciseness.
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?
Despite having a nested input schema and output schema, the description leaves out essential context: what fields are required versus optional, what match/matching_algorithm are for, and what a successful create does. The bare 'Create a new correspondent.' is only minimally enough to identify the operation, not to invoke it correctly.
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 should compensate by explaining what body, name, match, is_insensitive, and matching_algorithm mean. It mentions none of the parameters. An agent cannot determine the semantics of this nested body schema from the description alone.
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 'Create a new correspondent.' merely restates the tool name and title ('Create Correspondent') with the word 'new' added. It gives no additional semantic information about what a correspondent is, what creation entails, or how it differs from update_correspondent or other sibling create tools.
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?
There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus update_correspondent, bulk_edit_correspondents, or other alternatives. No preconditions, exclusions, or context are provided; the only implicit signal is that 'create' contrasts with 'update'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.