mcp-paperless-ngx

Server status

get_server_status

Read-onlyIdempotent

Check Paperless-ngx server health by retrieving version, database and index status, Redis and worker reachability, and search index freshness.

Instructions

Instance health: Paperless version, database and index status, whether Redis and the task workers are reachable, and whether the search index is up to date.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "get_server_status"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.1Aug 30, 2026

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already convey that the tool is read-only, idempotent, open-world, and non-destructive. The description adds value by revealing exactly which subsystems are examined and that the search index freshness is part of the health signal, giving the agent a clearer behavioral picture without contradicting annotations.

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 a single, compact sentence that front-loads the key concept ('Instance health') and then lists the covered components efficiently. Every word adds useful information; there is no filler or repetition.

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 zero-parameter read-only health check, the description is complete: it states the resource, enumerates the checked subsystems, and the annotations cover safety and side-effect expectations. No output schema exists, but the description sufficiently characterizes the status information the tool provides.

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

Parameters4/5

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

The tool takes zero parameters and the schema has 100% coverage, so there is nothing meaningful for the description to add about parameter usage. The baseline of 4 applies because no parameter ambiguity exists.

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 clearly identifies the tool's purpose: assessing instance health and enumerates the specific components covered (Paperless version, database, index, Redis, task workers, search index freshness). This distinguishes it from siblings like get_statistics, get_remote_version, and get_active_tasks.

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?

There is no explicit guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as get_statistics for usage metrics or get_active_tasks for operation status. The intended use as a health check is implied by the description, but no exclusions or sibling routing are provided.

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

Deploy Server