Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
paperclip-mcp

paperclip-mcp

by shanewiseman
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

List issue tree holds

pc_get_issues_by_id_tree_holds
Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieves all tree holds for a specific issue to identify dependencies or blockers.

Instructions

List issue tree holds

Paperclip operation: GET /api/issues/{id}/tree-holds. 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_issues_by_id_tree_holds"
  }
}

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

C2.9/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint. The description adds the API path and authorization class, which gives some context but does not elaborate on behavior (e.g., empty list, error handling). The added value beyond annotations is moderate.

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 short: two sentences. The purpose is front-loaded. The second sentence contains technical details (API path, auth class) that are not strictly necessary but are not wasteful. It is concise.

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 the simplicity of the tool (one parameter, list operation) and presence of output schema, the description is minimally complete but lacks explanation of what 'tree holds' are and the output format. It does not guide the agent on the concept or expected result.

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 the description does not explain the 'path' parameter or the 'id' field. The schema shows a nested object with required 'id', but no description clarifies that 'id' is the issue ID. The description adds no value for parameters.

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 'List issue tree holds', which is a specific verb ('list') and resource ('issue tree holds'). It distinguishes from sibling tools (create, get specific, release) by implying a listing operation, though it does not explicitly differentiate.

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_issues_by_id_tree_holds, pc_get_issues_by_id_tree_holds_by_hold_id). Does not state that this is for reading all holds vs other operations.

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