get_storage_pathFetch a storage path by its numeric ID to view details like the path template or location in Paperless-NGX.
Fetch a storage path by ID.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| storage_path_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| name | Yes | ||
| path | 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 already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior; the description's 'Fetch' aligns with those and adds no extra behavioral caveats. For a simple getter this is sufficient, though the description contributes no behavioral detail beyond 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 compact sentence that delivers the core action and parameter relationship with no filler. Everything present earns its place.
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 one-parameter, read-only, idempotent getter with an output schema and rich annotations, this description is complete. An agent has everything needed to select and 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?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by identifying the single parameter's role as the lookup key ('by ID'). The parameter's name and integer type make the remaining semantics self-explanatory.
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?
'Fetch a storage path by ID' names a specific action, resource, and lookup mechanism. The singular 'by ID' distinguishes it from list_storage_paths and other sibling getters, so an agent can select it without opening the schema.
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 by-ID lookup makes the appropriate context clear: use when you already have a storage_path_id and need that single resource. It does not explicitly name list_storage_paths as the alternative when an ID is not known, so it falls just short of full alternative routing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.