Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
paperclip-mcp

paperclip-mcp

by shanewiseman
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

List plugin UI contributions

pc_get_plugins_ui_contributions
Read-onlyIdempotent

List all UI contributions from plugins to enable custom interface integration for Paperclip boards.

Instructions

List plugin UI contributions

Paperclip operation: GET /api/plugins/ui-contributions. Authorization class: board.

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_plugins_ui_contributions"
  }
}

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

A3.6/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, which indicate a safe, read-only operation. The description adds the specific HTTP endpoint (GET /api/plugins/ui-contributions) and authorization class ('board'), which provides useful context beyond the annotations. However, it does not elaborate on pagination, rate limits, or the nature of the response.

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 very brief: two sentences. The first sentence essentially repeats the title. The second sentence adds technical details (HTTP path and auth). While concise, it could be more efficient by merging or removing redundancy. Still, it is clearly structured and easy to scan.

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 tool has an output schema (not shown), the description does not need to explain return values. However, it lacks context such as the scope of the listing (e.g., all plugins or installed ones) or whether it requires specific permissions beyond the hinted authorization class. The description is adequate but incomplete for an AI agent to fully understand when and how to use it.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema has no parameters, so schema description coverage is 100%. The description does not need to add parameter semantics. It succinctly notes that the tool requires no additional input. The baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4, and the description meets that.

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 title 'List plugin UI contributions' and the description's first sentence clearly state the action (list) and resource (plugin UI contributions). This is a specific verb+resource combination that distinguishes it from the many sibling tools that deal with plugins, companies, issues, etc. The name and description align perfectly.

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 lacks any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention when this listing is appropriate (e.g., discovering available UI contributions from plugins) or what specific context it covers (e.g., global vs per-company). No exclusions or alternatives are 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