Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
paperclip-mcp

paperclip-mcp

by shanewiseman
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

Delete a tool access profile

pc_delete_tool_profiles_by_profile_id
DestructiveIdempotent

Delete a tool access profile by its ID. Optionally reassign tools to another profile or force deletion.

Instructions

Delete a tool access profile

Paperclip operation: DELETE /api/tool-profiles/{profileId}. 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>",
      "body": "<body>"
    },
    "name": "pc_delete_tool_profiles_by_profile_id"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
bodyYes
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

C2.7/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

The description adds the HTTP method and authorization class, but the core behavioral traits (destructive, idempotent) are already conveyed by annotations. No extra details are provided about side effects like cascading deletions or whether the operation can be undone.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is very concise with two sentences, no unnecessary words. However, it sacrifices valuable context for brevity, missing opportunities to clarify parameters or behavior.

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?

For a destructive tool with nested parameters and an output schema, the description is insufficient. It lacks information on parameter semantics, prerequisites, and the consequences of deletion, leaving significant gaps for the agent.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters1/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must explain parameters. It does not. The agent is given no information about what 'force' means or how 'reassignToProfileId' works, leaving the agent to infer from schema alone.

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 verb 'Delete' and the resource 'tool access profile', which directly matches the title and distinguishes it from sibling tools like patch or create operations for profiles.

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, such as archiving or disabling a profile. It does not mention prerequisites, intended use cases, or scenarios where deletion is inappropriate.

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