get_document_typeRetrieve a document type's details by its ID from Paperless-NGX.
Fetch a document type by ID.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| document_type_id | 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 |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is already covered. The description 'Fetch a document type by ID' is consistent with those annotations but adds no behavioral context beyond what the schema already shows. It does not contradict the annotations.
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?
One short sentence, directly front-loaded with the verb and resource. No filler, no repetition, and the structure is appropriate for the simplicity of the operation.
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 get-by-id tool with an output schema, safe annotations, and a single required parameter, the description is nearly sufficient. The main gap is the lack of any usage context or not-found/error behavior, but these are minor for such a straightforward lookup.
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 fails to compensate. It only repeats the word 'by ID' without explaining the meaning, format, or expectations for the document_type_id parameter. The parameter name already conveys this, so the description adds no value beyond the schema.
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 uses a specific verb ('Fetch'), identifies the exact resource ('a document type'), and scopes it 'by ID', which clearly distinguishes it from list_document_types and the mutation siblings. It is unambiguous, though it stops short of explicitly naming the alternative.
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 on when to use this tool versus list_document_types or other document-type tools. The use case (fetching a single document type by ID) is implied by the description and schema, but not stated explicitly, and there is no mention of prerequisites or alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.