Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
paperclip-mcp

paperclip-mcp

by shanewiseman
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

Send data via plugin bridge

pc_post_plugins_by_plugin_id_bridge_data

Send data to a plugin's bridge using a key and optional parameters to enable communication between the plugin and external services.

Instructions

Send data via plugin bridge

Paperclip operation: POST /api/plugins/{pluginId}/bridge/data. 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_plugins_by_plugin_id_bridge_data"
  }
}

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

C2.4/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false (write) and openWorldHint=true (side effects), but the description adds little: it only repeats 'Send data' and provides an obscure 'Authorization class: board'. No disclosure of what happens to the data, rate limits, or consequences.

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 unnecessary technical details (HTTP method, authorization class) that do not aid an agent. It is brief but lacks substance, making it insufficiently informative.

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?

With 2 required parameters, nested objects, and no parameter descriptions, the description fails to provide essential context for invoking the tool. The existence of an output schema is irrelevant since the description omits input guidance.

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 coverage is 0% and the description does not explain any parameters (body.key, body.params, body.companyId). An agent cannot infer what values to provide or their purpose.

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 states 'Send data via plugin bridge' indicating a clear verb+resource. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling 'pc_post_plugins_by_plugin_id_bridge_action', which likely performs a different operation (action vs data). The purpose is generally clear but lacks contrast.

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 'pc_post_plugins_by_plugin_id_bridge_action' or other plugin tools. No prerequisites or context for invocation 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