DottaandPaperclip
7ec6e1a237
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip coordinates agents through authorized tools. > - The native runner validates arguments before it dispatches a tool call. > - Schema failures give repair guidance for only five built-in tools. > - Assigned-tool discovery receives a generic rejection, so an agent can mistake invalid arguments for missing access. > - This PR applies the existing safe schema feedback to every authorized tool. > - Agents can correct their calls while authorization, approval, and replay checks remain in force. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What happened?** An invalid `paperclip_search_assigned_tools` call returned only `Paperclip rejected this semantic tool call`. The call never reached the assigned-tool gateway. The same feedback gap affects arbitrary assigned app tools. **Expected behavior** Identify argument validation as the cause. Return bounded schema locations and ask the provider to correct its arguments. Do not expose submitted values or grant access to unassigned tools. **Steps to reproduce** Prepare an authorized discovery tool. Submit an invalid query or optional argument through the native runner. Observe the generic error before this fix. Correct the arguments and confirm one dispatch after this fix. **Paperclip version or commit** Reproduced on master at `4970d5ed3d`. The incident did not retain its rejected arguments, so the tests cover representative invalid inputs rather than claim to replay that exact payload. **Deployment mode** Native runner with the Codex app-server driver. Local verification uses macOS ARM64 and controlled provider fixtures. Related: #16868 added bounded monitor validation feedback. #16723 changes runtime MCP catalog loading; this PR changes the Rust runner validation response and does not depend on that work. ## What Changed - Supply generic repair guidance for any authorized tool whose arguments fail JSON Schema validation. Preserve specific built-in hints. - Keep the existing three-location and 512-byte limits. Do not include input values or unknown keys. Preserve generic authorization failures and the existing retry flag. - Cover missing fields, wrong types, null optional fields, bounds, unknown fields, unchanged rejected-call state, corrected calls, and completed-call replay protection. - Exercise rejection, correction, one dispatch, and successful completion through the real Codex driver with a controlled provider subprocess. - Document the behavior and its verification scope in execution semantics and the agent access map. ## Verification - Red: both new runner regressions failed on the original generic rejection. The existing API-validation regression passed. - Green: all seven selected validation tests passed. The new Codex transport regression passed with one rejection and one corrected dispatch. - `cargo fmt --manifest-path packages/paperclip-runner/runner/Cargo.toml --all -- --check`, `node scripts/check-maps.mjs`, and `git diff --check` passed. - Full Rust workspace tests, the repository build, and sequential repository typecheck passed. The existing assigned-tool gateway suite passed all 30 tests. All hosted test and end-to-end jobs passed on this head. The duplicate local `test:run` was interrupted after the hosted suites passed; its local result is incomplete. The hosted build and clean public npm installation check also passed. All current-head CI gates are green, including the final verify and e2e aggregates. - Greptile reviewed commit `3e2743e1e15b3b13a7d803ce4d828510e41fb22a`: 5/5, no actionable findings. - Setup evidence: master has a stale dependency lockfile. Dependencies were resolved with the pinned pnpm 9.15.4; lockfile changes are excluded. The first full typecheck overlapped the build and failed copying a generated shared-package file. The sequential rerun passed with no source change. The initial copy failure remains recorded here; the concurrent build-output race was not separately reproduced. - The provider is simulated. This proves runner validation and transport recovery, not that a live model always retries or that GitHub credentials work. ## Risks The provider now sees schema locations for all authorized tools. The existing sanitizer and bounds still apply. Unknown input keys and values remain excluded. No schema, permission, approval, automatic tool replay, database, or connection-auth changes are made. Unauthorized tools still get a generic rejection. ## Model Used OpenAI Codex (GPT-6), with reasoning, source inspection, and tool execution. The exact runtime model ID and context-window size are not exposed in this session. ## Checklist - [x] I have included a thinking path that traces from project context to this change - [x] I have specified the model used (with version and capability details) - [x] I have checked ROADMAP.md and confirmed this PR does not duplicate planned core work - [x] I have searched GitHub for duplicate or related PRs and linked them above - [x] I have either (a) linked existing issues with `Fixes: #` / `Closes #` / `Refs #` OR (b) described the issue in-PR following the relevant issue template - [x] I have not referenced internal/instance-local Paperclip issues or links (only public GitHub `#NNN` / `github.com/paperclipai/paperclip` URLs) - [x] My branch name describes the change (e.g. `docs/...`, `fix/...`) and contains no internal Paperclip ticket id or instance-derived details - [x] I have run tests locally and they pass - [x] I have added or updated tests where applicable - [x] I have updated relevant documentation to reflect my changes - [x] I have considered and documented any risks above - [x] All Paperclip CI gates are green - [x] Greptile is 5/5 with no open P2s, recommendations, or follow-ups - [x] I will address all Greptile and reviewer comments before requesting merge Co-authored-by: Paperclip <noreply@paperclip.ing>
Paperclip agent access map
This map accompanies the feature map. It records APIs, agent entry points, permission boundaries and verification for the same capability IDs. The shared contract defines the format and maintenance rules.
Browse access contracts
The same-named feature recipes define navigation and capability IDs. Run
node scripts/storybook-catalog.mjs for the generated
maps/generated/agent-access-map.md index, or browse the
published feature guide.
Add or update the affected companion; there is no central registration or count.
Existing baseline source references describe the original inspection, not current verification. Record new executed evidence in the PR, issue, or CI artifact with its revision and scope. Do not refresh unrelated headers as bookkeeping.
Using an entry
Read its Policy and Gaps before selecting an agent path. Native fallback, legacy
REST/CLI, stdio MCP and a personal assistant connection can have different
authority and availability. Use a real admitted production binding; a scenario
declaration is not an installed tool. A restricted entry records current
enforcement and leaves any unresolved delegation decision visible.
For API catalog disagreements, follow the route/service authorization and record
discovery drift. For not-applicable, retain the concrete exception and local
path. Split shared business operations from client-only presentation.
Use maintain-verification-skill to reconcile changed source and both maps.
Use verify-paperclip and existing API/runner/MCP fixtures to collect the
permitted-agent and denial evidence; report blocked/not-run coverage honestly.
Run node scripts/check-maps.mjs after editing. The structural check does not
certify permissions, API catalog coverage, tool admission or live behavior.
Native REST transport
The call_api parity change reconciles affected baselines against
58e16dbddfc9c8d0cf60867f9d9847f0feda055b and the changes in this PR. Ordinary
REST operations use the same route authorization as legacy agent REST. Dedicated
tools remain optional for those operations; protocol endpoints still need their
existing clients. Board-only routes remain restricted for agent identity.
Native search_api / call_api requires operator rollout admission, a running
authorized native run, current task assignment and execution-run binding, company
and budget authority, task privacy, and a permitted work mode. Ask and Plan retain
mutation restrictions, and runs retain their admitted JWT scope during restart
recovery even when task mode changes. A waiting
agent does not gain independent native control just because a REST route exists.
Credential-bearing replies, including company exports and their legacy alias, stay inline under a 10 MiB limit and use encrypted mutation receipts. Other saved API snapshots are limited to the issuing actor and responsible user, plus authorized administrators. Artifact uploads enforce the same access checks as downloads; private snapshots are excluded from company exports and public company logos. Explicit deliverables use the existing sharing path. Native event history, checkpoints and completion records omit API bodies while preserving receipt metadata and replay digests. Restored webhook secrets use the same encrypted receipt and inline response policy as newly created webhook secrets. Task image access requires the company boundary and the task permission; skill-test and low-trust agents do not need company-wide browsing authority. Completion replay applies the same idempotent projection to stored and expected payloads; the run-log guide describes its fields.
Sources: API client,
catalog,
native authority,
credential storage classification,
snapshot access,
and history redaction. The affected entries remain
baseline and source-only; this reconciliation does not certify every operation.
Targeted real-route proof lives in the
API integration suite,
including owned routines, skill tests, scoped secrets, proposals and private export replay.