Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
paperclip-mcp

paperclip-mcp

by shanewiseman
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

Resolve an issue workspace file

pc_get_issues_by_issue_id_file_resources_resolve
Read-onlyIdempotent

Resolves a file resource linked to an issue by specifying its workspace path and optional project or workspace identifiers.

Instructions

Resolve an issue workspace file

Paperclip operation: GET /api/issues/{issueId}/file-resources/resolve. 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_resolve"
  }
}

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

C2.4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a safe read operation. The description adds 'Authorization class: board', which hints at permission requirements but does not contradict annotations. No additional behavioral details (e.g., what 'resolve' entails) are provided, but the annotations carry the burden.

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), which is concise, but the first sentence merely repeats the title. The second adds minimal useful context. While it avoids fluff, it sacrifices completeness for brevity.

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?

The description is too sparse for a tool with nested parameters and no schema descriptions. It fails to explain what 'resolving' a workspace file means, how it differs from listing or getting content, or what the output represents. Even with an output schema present, the agent lacks context for correct usage.

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%, meaning the input schema provides no documentation for parameters. The description does not explain any parameters (issueId, path, workspace, etc.), leaving the agent to guess their meaning. This is a significant gap.

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 states a verb ('Resolve') and a resource ('issue workspace file'), indicating the general action. However, 'resolve' is ambiguous without further context (e.g., resolve a path, resolve a conflict, resolve a reference). The description does not distinguish this tool from the sibling tools for listing or getting content of file resources.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It only repeats the title and adds the HTTP method and authorization class. No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use instructions are given.

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