Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
paperclip-mcp

paperclip-mcp

by shanewiseman
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

Enable a plugin

pc_post_plugins_by_plugin_id_enable

Enable a plugin using its unique ID to activate its features on the board.

Instructions

Enable a plugin

Paperclip operation: POST /api/plugins/{pluginId}/enable. 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>"
    },
    "name": "pc_post_plugins_by_plugin_id_enable"
  }
}

Input Schema

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

A3.5/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Adds that it's a POST operation (mutating) and authorization requirement. Annotations already indicate non-readonly and non-destructive, so description adds marginal value.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Extremely concise with two sentences, no redundant information.

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?

Minimal description; fails to leverage output schema or provide context on enabling semantics. Could benefit from more details on effects or prerequisites.

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?

Description does not mention parameters. Schema has 50% description coverage; fails to add meaning for the body or path parameters.

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?

Clearly states 'Enable a plugin' with verb and resource. Distinguishes from sibling tools like disable and delete by name and description.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Does not provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. Mentions authorization class but no comparison with alternatives like disabler or delete.

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