Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
paperclip-mcp

paperclip-mcp

by shanewiseman
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

Create accepted plan decomposition child issues

pc_post_issues_by_id_accepted_plan_decompositions

Creates child issues under a parent issue using an accepted plan revision. Specify children with title and status to decompose the plan.

Instructions

Create accepted plan decomposition child issues

Paperclip operation: POST /api/issues/{id}/accepted-plan-decompositions. 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_post_issues_by_id_accepted_plan_decompositions"
  }
}

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

B3.2/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations provide basic behavior (write, not idempotent, not destructive). Description adds authorization class but no side effects or detailed behavioral traits beyond what annotations and schema imply.

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?

Description is short and front-loaded with purpose. Could add more context without being overly verbose, but it's efficient for its core message.

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 of the input schema and lack of output schema details, the description is insufficient. Does not explain decomposition concept, accepted plan revision relationship, or return value expectations.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema coverage is 0%, yet description provides no parameter-level explanations. Many nested fields are undocumented, leaving the agent without guidance on field semantics.

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?

Description clearly states it creates accepted plan decomposition child issues. Title matches. Sibling GET tool is for retrieval, so this distinguishes well.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives like pc_post_issues_by_id_children. Authorization class mentioned but no prerequisites or context for selection.

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