Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
paperclip-mcp

paperclip-mcp

by shanewiseman
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

Legacy — returns error directing to /api/companies/{companyId}/issues

pc_get_issues
Read-onlyIdempotent

Redirects to the correct endpoint for retrieving company issues. This legacy tool directs users to /api/companies/{companyId}/issues for issue data.

Instructions

Legacy — returns error directing to /api/companies/{companyId}/issues

Paperclip operation: GET /api/issues. Authorization class: board_or_agent.

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_issues"
  }
}

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

A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

The description adds context beyond annotations: it reveals the tool is legacy and returns an error. Annotations already indicate readOnly and idempotent, so the description complements these by explaining the actual behavior (error redirection).

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?

Two short sentences with no wasted words. The key information 'Legacy' is front-loaded, and the redirection path is clearly provided. Extremely concise and well-structured.

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

Completeness5/5

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

For a legacy tool that simply returns an error and redirects, the description is fully complete. It tells the agent what happens (error) and what to use instead. No additional details are needed.

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%, so the description does not need to add parameter details. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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?

The description explicitly states 'Legacy — returns error directing to /api/companies/{companyId}/issues', clearly indicating the tool is deprecated and redirects users. This is a specific verb+resource+outcome.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description clearly implies not to use this tool by stating it returns an error and directs to another endpoint. While it does not explicitly say 'do not use', the context is sufficient for an agent to understand it should use the suggested alternative.

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