get_document_suggestionsGet classifier suggestions for a document, providing recommended tags, correspondents, and types to speed up metadata assignment.
Return Paperless's classifier suggestions for a document.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| document_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tags | No | ||
| dates | No | ||
| storage_paths | No | ||
| correspondents | No | ||
| document_types | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already carry readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds classifier context but no extra behavioral detail, such as whether suggestions may be empty or that no changes are applied. It matches the annotations, so there is no contradiction.
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?
A single eight-word sentence with no filler. It front-loads the verb and object and omits redundant restatement of the title.
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 simple one-parameter, read-only tool, the description plus annotations and output schema cover most of what an agent needs. The main gap is the missing explicit parameter mapping and usage context, but the required integer document_id is self-explanatory from the schema.
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%, and the description never names document_id or explains that the required integer identifies the target document. The phrase 'for a document' is only a weak pointer, leaving parameter semantics almost entirely to the schema field name.
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?
Description uses a specific verb-resource pair: 'Return Paperless's classifier suggestions for a document.' The title clarifies exactly which suggestions are involved (Tags, Correspondent and Type), and this operation is distinct from any other sibling tool. It stops short of explicitly contrasting itself with get_document or get_document_metadata, so not a 5.
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?
The description gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives; the only hint is the word 'suggestions' versus the more concrete metadata/history tools. There are no exclusion criteria or alternative-tool routing, leaving the agent to infer usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.