Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
paperclip-mcp

paperclip-mcp

by shanewiseman
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

Read issue workspace file content

pc_get_issues_by_issue_id_file_resources_content
Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve the content of a file resource attached to a specific issue by providing the issue ID and file path.

Instructions

Read issue workspace file content

Paperclip operation: GET /api/issues/{issueId}/file-resources/content. 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": {
      "path": "<path>",
      "query": "<query>"
    },
    "name": "pc_get_issues_by_issue_id_file_resources_content"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pathYes
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

C2.5/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, etc., and the description adds only 'Authorization class: board.' No additional behavioral traits (e.g., error handling, file existence behavior) are disclosed. This is adequate but minimal.

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 extremely concise (two sentences, no fluff), but it sacrifices necessary detail. For a tool with zero schema descriptions, this structure is too sparse.

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 presence of an output schema, nested parameters, and multiple optional fields, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what the output contains, how workspace selection works, or how this tool fits into the file resource workflow.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, but it provides no explanation of any parameter. The query parameters (path, projectId, workspace, workspaceId) are entirely unexplained, leaving the agent without guidance on how to use them.

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

Purpose3/5

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

The description repeats the title verbatim and adds the HTTP path, but it doesn't distinguish this tool from siblings like 'list' or 'resolve' beyond the name. It lacks specificity about what 'content' means (text, binary, etc.).

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 versus alternative file-related tools (list, resolve). No when-to-use or when-not-to-use context provided.

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