Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
paperclip-mcp

paperclip-mcp

by shanewiseman
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

List all users (admin)

pc_get_admin_users
Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve a list of all admin users in Paperclip.

Instructions

List all users (admin)

Paperclip operation: GET /api/admin/users. Authorization class: board.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "pc_get_admin_users"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
bodyYes
headersYes
encodingYes
status_codeYes
content_typeYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

The description includes the HTTP method and path, and the authorization class, adding some behavioral context beyond the annotations (which already declare readOnlyHint and destructiveHint). However, it does not disclose other important traits like rate limits, pagination, or whether the list includes all users across all companies.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is extremely concise, consisting of two sentences that front-load the main action. It includes useful details (HTTP method, path, authorization class) without any waste. Every sentence adds value.

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

Completeness4/5

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

The tool is simple with no parameters and an output schema exists, so the description covers the essential purpose. The inclusion of the HTTP path and authorization class adds useful context. However, it lacks any guidance on scope (e.g., does it list users from all companies?) or limitations, which would be helpful for completeness.

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

Parameters3/5

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

There are no parameters, and schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no parameter semantics because none are needed. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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?

Clearly states 'List all users (admin)' which identifies the verb and resource. Includes the HTTP method and path, and the authorization class. However, the description does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like pc_get_companies or pc_get_admin_users_by_user_id_company_access.

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 pc_get_companies for listing companies or pc_get_admin_users_by_user_id_company_access for a specific user's company access. The context of 'admin' and 'board' authorization is implicit but not enough for clear decision-making.

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