mcp-paperless-ngx

Delete tag

delete_tag

Destructive

Permanently delete a tag from Paperless-ngx, removing it from all documents. This cannot be undone, so confirm with the user first.

Instructions

Permanently delete a tag. Documents are not deleted, but they lose this assignment and it cannot be restored. Confirm with the user first.

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": {
      "id": "<id>"
    },
    "name": "delete_tag"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`id`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.1Aug 30, 2026

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses important behavioral consequences: documents lose the tag assignment, the deletion cannot be restored, and user confirmation is required. This goes well beyond the bare destructiveHint and provides exactly the kind of context an agent needs before invoking a destructive action.

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?

The description is concise, with no wasted words. The primary purpose is front-loaded, followed by the two most important caveats: documents lose the assignment and the action cannot be undone.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple one-parameter destructive tool with no output schema, the description covers all essential context: what is deleted, what happens to associated documents, irreversibility, and confirmation requirement. Nothing crucial is missing.

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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage for its only parameter, and the description does not explain that the required 'id' refers to the tag being deleted. While the parameter name is somewhat self-evident, the description provides no explicit mapping or additional meaning, so it fails to compensate for the low schema coverage.

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?

The description states a specific action ('Permanently delete a tag') and clearly distinguishes the resource from siblings like update_tag or create_tag. It also clarifies the scope by explaining that documents themselves are not deleted, which differentiates it from delete_document.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description gives clear context: use this when permanently removing a tag, and it emphasizes irreversibility and the need to confirm with the user first. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclusions, but the destructive purpose is unmistakable.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server