get_tagFetch a tag by ID to retrieve its details from Paperless-NGX, enabling document organization and filtering.
Fetch a tag by ID.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tag_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| name | Yes | ||
| slug | No | ||
| color | No | ||
| match | No | ||
| owner | No | ||
| colour | No | ||
| is_inbox_tag | 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=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, and the description's 'Fetch' is consistent with those traits. It adds no extra behavioral context such as not-found behavior, but the annotation coverage makes this an acceptable baseline.
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 description is four words with no filler or redundancy. It front-loads the action, resource, and the key identifying parameter, so every word 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 simple one-parameter getter with an output schema and annotations covering the safety profile, the description is functionally complete enough for an agent to call it correctly. It omits missing-tag behavior, but the low complexity and rich annotations prevent this from being a significant gap.
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%, but there is only one parameter, tag_id, and the phrase 'by ID' directly maps to it. The description adds minimal meaning beyond the schema and does not clarify where a valid ID comes from or what constraints apply.
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 clearly states a specific action, 'Fetch', and a specific resource, 'a tag', with an ID qualifier. This makes it clear the tool retrieves a single tag rather than listing all tags, though it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like list_tags or create_tag.
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 intended use case is implied: call this when you have a tag_id and need a single tag. However, the description gives no explicit guidance about when to prefer get_tag over list_tags, nor does it address edge cases such as a nonexistent ID.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.