Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
paperclip-mcp

paperclip-mcp

by shanewiseman
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

Preview issue graph liveness auto-recovery

pc_post_instance_settings_experimental_issue_graph_li_b830ccae10

Preview the impact of issue graph liveness auto-recovery settings for your Paperclip instance. Specify lookback hours to simulate recovery scenarios.

Instructions

Preview issue graph liveness auto-recovery

Paperclip operation: POST /api/instance/settings/experimental/issue-graph-liveness-auto-recovery/preview. 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": {
      "body": "<body>"
    },
    "name": "pc_post_instance_settings_experimental_issue_graph_li_b830ccae10"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
bodyYes

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
bodyYes
headersYes
encodingYes
status_codeYes
content_typeYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

C2.2/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

The description adds the exact HTTP method and path, and authorization class, which are not in annotations. However, it does not disclose any behavioral traits such as side effects, whether it modifies state, or what the preview returns. Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false, but the description fails to elaborate on the mutation semantics or any other significant behaviors beyond what the endpoint implies.

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) and avoids unnecessary verbiage. However, it redundantly restates the title as the first sentence, and the structure does not lead with a clear purpose statement. While concise, it sacrifices informativeness and logical organization.

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 tool's one parameter with constraints (min/max lookbackHours) and an output schema, the description is critically incomplete. It does not explain what the tool does in context (e.g., what 'issue graph liveness auto-recovery' means), how the parameter affects output, or what the response contains. An agent would struggle to select or use this tool correctly without external knowledge.

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 does not mention the single parameter 'lookbackHours' or its purpose (e.g., what it controls, default values, or impact on results). The description's silence on parameters leaves the agent with no semantic understanding of how to use the input, severely hindering correct invocation.

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 the tool 'previews issue graph liveness auto-recovery', providing a verb and resource. However, the meaning of 'issue graph liveness auto-recovery' is obscure, and the description does not clarify what this preview entails or how it differs from the similarly named sibling tool (e.g., pc_post_instance_settings_experimental_issue_graph_li_f0f6648423). The purpose is vague and lacks sufficient context for an agent to understand the tool's functionality.

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 is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description mentions 'Preview' and provides the API endpoint and authorization class, but does not explain the conditions under which previewing is appropriate, prerequisites, or when to avoid it. The sibling list includes many tools, but no differentiation or usage context is 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