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

mcp-paperless-ngx

by tobee89
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

Test a storage path template

test_storage_path
Read-onlyIdempotent

Render a storage path template against an existing document to preview the resulting file path and validate the template before saving it.

Instructions

Render a storage path template against an existing document to see the resulting file path. Use this to validate a template before saving it.

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>",
      "document": "<document>"
    },
    "name": "test_storage_path"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pathYesThe storage path template to render.
documentYesID of the document to render the template against.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.1

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive; description adds minor context ('against an existing document') but no additional behaviors like error/edge-case handling.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core operation and followed by the usage rationale; no filler or duplication.

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

Completeness4/5

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

Complete enough for a simple read-only validation tool with fully documented parameters and strong annotations. No output schema, but the outcome ('resulting file path') is stated; minor gap on error/output structure.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema covers both parameters fully (100%); description adds no significant detail beyond 'path' and 'document' as described in schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

Description uses a specific verb ('Render') and resource ('storage path template') plus outcome ('see the resulting file path'), clearly distinguishing it from create/update storage path siblings.

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?

States explicit use case ('validate a template before saving it'), giving clear context. Does not name alternative tools or exclusion criteria, so not a 5.

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