Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
mcp-paperless-ngx

mcp-paperless-ngx

by tobee89
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

List share links for a document

list_document_share_links
Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve existing share links for a document by ID to check before creating a new one.

Instructions

Existing share links for one document — check this before creating another.

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": "list_document_share_links"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.1

TDQS

B3.3/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the document-scoping behavior and positioning as a precondition to creation, but does not disclose pagination, ordering, or partial result behavior. No contradiction with 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?

A single, front-loaded sentence that immediately conveys scope and purpose. The second clause earns its place by giving a concrete usage hint. No filler or redundancy.

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

Completeness3/5

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

For a simple one-parameter read-only tool, the description plus rich annotations is mostly sufficient. However, it does not differentiate from list_share_links, explain output/return behavior, or clarify parameter meaning, and there is no output schema to fill those gaps.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must explain the 'id' parameter, but it does not. The tool name and title imply 'id' is a document ID, but the description itself provides no parameter semantics beyond 'one document'.

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 identifies the resource ('share links') and scope ('for one document'), and the title provides the verb 'List'. It hints at differentiation from creating a share link, but it never explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling list_share_links.

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?

It gives one clear usage scenario: check before creating another share link. However, it does not mention when to prefer list_share_links over this tool, nor does it state exclusions. The guidance is useful but mostly implied.

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