Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
paperclip-mcp

paperclip-mcp

by shanewiseman
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

Create a tool gateway session

pc_post_tool_gateway_sessions

Creates a new tool gateway session, accepting run ID, TTL, agent ID, issue ID, company ID, and project ID for board or agent authorization.

Instructions

Create a tool gateway session

Paperclip operation: POST /api/tool-gateway/sessions. 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": {
      "body": "<body>"
    },
    "name": "pc_post_tool_gateway_sessions"
  }
}

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

C2.7/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already state readOnlyHint=false (write operation) and destructiveHint=false. The description adds the authorization class 'board_or_agent,' which is a behavioral constraint not present in annotations. However, it does not disclose what creating a session entails (e.g., side effects, TTL behavior, limits on session count). The addition of auth class is notable but incomplete.

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?

The description is very short (two sentences) and front-loads the core purpose. It avoids unnecessary detail. However, it could be slightly longer to include parameter semantics without becoming verbose. The conciseness is good but under-informative.

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 complexity (nested input object, 6 properties, 1 required), the description is inadequate. It does not explain the purpose of a tool gateway session, what the output represents, or when creation is needed. With an output schema present but no description of return values, the agent lacks essential context for proper usage.

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 explain any of the parameters (runId, ttlMs, agentId, etc.). The description mentions none of the input fields, leaving the agent without guidance on what values to provide or their meanings. This is a critical gap for a tool with a nested body object.

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 'Create a tool gateway session' using a specific verb ('Create') and resource ('tool gateway session'). It is unambiguous about the tool's basic function, though it does not explicitly differentiate from related tools like revoke session or other gateway operations.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, no context about session lifecycle or when creation is appropriate. The only added detail is the authorization class, but no when-to-use or when-not-to-use information.

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