Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
paperclip-mcp

paperclip-mcp

by shanewiseman
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

Archive a tool connection

pc_delete_tool_connections_by_connection_id
DestructiveIdempotent

Delete a tool connection by its ID to archive it permanently, removing it from the system.

Instructions

Archive a tool connection

Paperclip operation: DELETE /api/tool-connections/{connectionId}. Authorization class: board.

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": {
      "path": "<path>"
    },
    "name": "pc_delete_tool_connections_by_connection_id"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
bodyNoOptional JSON compatibility payload. The source OpenAPI operation does not declare a request schema.
pathYes

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
bodyYes
headersYes
encodingYes
status_codeYes
content_typeYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

C2.6/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

The description only says 'Archive' without explaining what it entails (e.g., reversibility, effect on related data). Annotations already indicate destructiveHint:true, but the description adds no behavioral detail beyond that.

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 very short (two sentences) and contains no unnecessary words. However, it is too minimal to convey useful information, making it under-informative rather than efficiently concise.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the complexity of the tool (destructive, with output schema and multiple parameters), the description lacks essential context such as what archiving means, what happens after archiving, and the authorization requirements beyond mentioning 'board'. It is not sufficiently complete.

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?

The description does not explain the parameters. The schema has partial coverage (body has a description, but connectionId lacks one). The description should clarify the connectionId parameter but does not.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description clearly states the tool archives a tool connection, using a specific verb and resource. However, it does not distinguish this operation from sibling tools like pc_patch_tool_connections_by_connection_id or pc_post_tool_connections_by_connection_id_reconnect.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, context for archiving, or when not to use it.

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