Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
paperclip-mcp

paperclip-mcp

by shanewiseman
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

Update an execution workspace

pc_patch_execution_workspaces_by_id

Update an existing execution workspace by ID, modifying its name, configuration, status, or other attributes to manage its lifecycle.

Instructions

Update an execution workspace

Paperclip operation: PATCH /api/execution-workspaces/{id}. 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>",
      "body": "<body>"
    },
    "name": "pc_patch_execution_workspaces_by_id"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
bodyYes
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

D1.7/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

The description adds a line about the authorization class ('board_or_agent'), but no other behavioral traits beyond annotations. It does not disclose side effects, partial update behavior, or validation rules.

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 short (two sentences), but it omits necessary details. The second sentence is technical. While concise, it fails to convey essential information efficiently.

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

Completeness1/5

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

Given the high complexity (nested objects, many parameters) and the existence of an output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain what an execution workspace update entails, leaving the AI with insufficient context.

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%, and the description provides no explanation of the parameters. The complex nested schema (including subfields like config, status, etc.) is left entirely undocumented, offering no help to the AI.

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

Purpose2/5

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

The description repeats the title 'Update an execution workspace' without adding specifics. It does not detail what an execution workspace is or what aspects can be updated, making it nearly a tautology.

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

Usage Guidelines1/5

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

No usage guidance is provided. The description does not indicate when to use this tool over alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites or consequences of updating an execution workspace.

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