Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
paperclip-mcp

paperclip-mcp

by shanewiseman
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

List cloud upstream connections

pc_get_cloud_upstreams
Read-onlyIdempotent

List cloud upstream connections for a company by providing the company ID.

Instructions

List cloud upstream connections

Paperclip operation: GET /api/cloud-upstreams. 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": {
      "query": "<query>"
    },
    "name": "pc_get_cloud_upstreams"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
queryYes

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
bodyYes
headersYes
encodingYes
status_codeYes
content_typeYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

Description adds only the HTTP method and API path; annotations already declare readOnlyHint true, idempotentHint true, destructiveHint false. No additional behavioral context (e.g., pagination, filtering, or what a 'connection' represents).

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?

Two sentences with no extraneous information. However, the brevity omits important parameter details, making it less effective.

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

Completeness3/5

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

Given output schema exists and annotations are rich, the description covers the basic purpose but lacks parameter semantics and usage context. For a simple read tool with one param, it is minimally adequate.

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?

Schema coverage is 0%, and description does not explain the meaning or purpose of the required 'companyId' parameter. The agent must infer from parameter name alone.

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

Purpose5/5

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

Description clearly states verb 'List' and resource 'cloud upstream connections'. It is distinct from sibling cloud upstream tools (e.g., connect, push).

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., pc_post_cloud_upstreams_connect_start). No context about prerequisites or typical use cases.

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