Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
paperclip-mcp

paperclip-mcp

by shanewiseman
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

Get an execution workspace

pc_get_execution_workspaces_by_id
Read-onlyIdempotent

Get an execution workspace by providing its ID, returning workspace details for use in board or agent workflows.

Instructions

Get an execution workspace

Paperclip operation: GET /api/execution-workspaces/{id}. Authorization class: board_or_agent.

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_get_execution_workspaces_by_id"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
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

C2.4/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds only the HTTP method and authorization class, which are redundant given annotations. No additional behavioral context beyond annotations.

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) but not wasteful. However, it is too brief to provide meaningful guidance, making it minimally adequate.

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 low complexity (one parameter, annotations present, output schema exists), the description still fails to define what an execution workspace is or how the tool fits into the broader system. The output schema is present, so return values need not be described, but the purpose and usage context are lacking.

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?

Input schema has 0% description coverage. The description does not explain the path.id parameter, leaving the agent with no guidance on what value to supply. This is a critical gap for such a simple parameter.

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 'Get' and resource 'execution workspace', and provides the API endpoint. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like pc_get_companies_by_company_id_execution_workspaces, though the name and endpoint imply a single resource by ID.

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 or alternatives. The description mentions authorization class but lacks context about prerequisites, typical scenarios, or when not to call this tool.

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