Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
paperclip-mcp

paperclip-mcp

by shanewiseman
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

Create a cloud upstream push run

pc_post_cloud_upstreams_by_connection_id_push_runs

Creates a push run for a cloud upstream connection, initiating data transfer from Paperclip to an external service.

Instructions

Create a cloud upstream push run

Paperclip operation: POST /api/cloud-upstreams/{connectionId}/push-runs. 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>",
      "body": "<body>"
    },
    "name": "pc_post_cloud_upstreams_by_connection_id_push_runs"
  }
}

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

C2.7/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already indicate non-read-only and non-destructive. The description adds the authorization class ('board'), providing some behavioral context. However, side effects of creating a push run are not explained.

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 but includes redundant implementation detail ('Paperclip operation: ...'). It could be front-loaded better. Acceptable but could be improved.

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 complexity (nested parameters, required fields, and an output schema), the description lacks explanation of what a cloud upstream push run is and what the return value represents. Incomplete for effective use.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description provides no meaning for any parameter. Parameters like connectionId, companyId, and retryOfRunId remain unexplained.

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 the action ('Create') and resource ('cloud upstream push run'). The HTTP path is provided but sibling differentiation (e.g., vs preview) is not explicitly mentioned.

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 alternatives like the preview endpoint. Prerequisites (e.g., existing connection) are not indicated.

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