Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
paperclip-mcp

paperclip-mcp

by shanewiseman
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

Trigger a database backup

pc_post_instance_database_backups

Initiate a database backup for a Paperclip instance to create a point-in-time snapshot.

Instructions

Trigger a database backup

Paperclip operation: POST /api/instance/database-backups. Authorization class: instance_admin.

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_post_instance_database_backups"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
bodyNoOptional JSON compatibility payload. The source OpenAPI operation does not declare a request schema.

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
bodyYes
headersYes
encodingYes
status_codeYes
content_typeYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

B3.1/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false. The description adds the authorization class (instance_admin) but does not disclose side effects, asynchronous nature, or potential impact. It meets baseline but adds minimal value.

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?

Two sentences: one for action, one for implementation details. Efficient and front-loaded. Could be slightly more informative without adding length.

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?

Lacks context about what happens after triggering (e.g., returns job ID, is async). Output schema exists but description doesn't leverage it. For a mutation tool, more completeness is needed.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Only one optional parameter (body) with no schema. Schema coverage is 100%, so the schema documents it. Description does not explain when body is needed. Baseline score is appropriate.

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 it triggers a database backup, matching the name and title. No sibling tool is similar, so differentiation is not needed. However, it could benefit from specifying what type of backup (e.g., full) or scope.

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. Mentions authorization class but no context about preconditions or when not to use it.

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