Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Paperless MCP

Paperless MCP

by pvliesdonk
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

Delete Correspondent

delete_correspondent
DestructiveIdempotent

Remove an unwanted correspondent by ID to clean up Paperless-NGX contacts and keep document metadata accurate.

Instructions

Delete a correspondent.

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": {
      "correspondent_id": "<correspondent_id>"
    },
    "name": "delete_correspondent"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
correspondent_idYes

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.1

TDQS

C2.2/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already provide destructiveHint, idempotentHint, and readOnlyHint false, but the description adds no extra behavioral context such as whether the deletion cascades to associated documents or is reversible. There is no annotation contradiction.

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?

The description is a single short sentence with no wasted words, but it is under-specified rather than efficiently informative. It is concise in length but does not use the available space to clarify selection or side effects.

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?

This is a simple one-parameter delete and annotations plus output schema fill in some context. However, the definition omits whether deletion has cascading effects, how it differs from bulk deletion, and any relevant prerequisites, leaving notable gaps for an agent deciding whether to invoke it.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description never references correspondent_id or explains that the parameter identifies the specific correspondent to delete. The property name is suggestive, but the text adds no semantic value beyond the schema.

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

Purpose2/5

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

The description 'Delete a correspondent.' restates the tool name and title almost word-for-word, adding no scope or differentiation. It does not mention that this targets a single correspondent by ID or contrast with bulk_edit_correspondents.

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 such as bulk_edit_correspondents, nor any mention of prerequisites, side effects, or expected context for deletion.

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