e345b9217d
## Thinking Path > - Paperclip is the open source app people use to manage AI agents for work. > - Native agents search tasks to find work that already exists. > - The search schema permits 200 results, but the server returns at most 100. > - The response does not tell the agent that more results exist. > - This pull request adds pages and reports the page size and continuation cursor. > - Agents can read the full accessible inventory before they decide that a task does not exist. ## Linked Issues or Issue Description **What happened?** A native `search_tasks` request with `limit: 200` returns only 100 tasks. Historical scans recovered 167 and 173 tasks with status partitions. This proves missing inventory and extra work. It does not prove duplicate task creation. **Expected behavior** Honor the declared limit. Report more results and give the caller a continuation cursor. **Steps to reproduce** Create 205 matching tasks in a test company. Call `search_tasks` with `limit: 200`. The baseline returns 100. The fixed path returns 200, then five when the caller uses `nextCursor`. **Paperclip version or commit** Baseline: `81ebe479e8db8a3d59c86cdfb894bd917734492f`. Related changes: #16979 changes UI status filters before pagination. #13699 adds public task URLs. Neither repairs this native limit. An exact `search_tasks` plus pagination PR search returned no result. Pattern: [Task searches omit cases beyond the first hundred](https://www.braintrust.dev/app/Paperclip/p/Paperclip%20Staging/patterns/c20462d6-05fd-4862-bfbd-7bec1f2bc159). ### Hypothesis and thesis for a fix The native authority uses `boundedLimit` with its default maximum of 100. The tool schema permits 200. The response contains only `tasks`. The raw request and result counts agree with this cause. Fix the native authority and its canonical tool contract. Keep the existing `tasks` field. Add `limit`, `returnedCount`, `hasMore` and `nextCursor`. Use ascending task IDs so task activity does not move results between pages. Apply current company, privacy and Muse read checks before each page. A cursor grants no access. Callers must keep the same filters and read every page. Concurrent task changes require a fresh scan. ## What Changed - Honor the native search limit of 1 to 200, with a default of 50. - Add ID cursor pagination and page metadata. - Describe complete inventory reads in the tool contract and access map. - Refresh the generated semantic contracts and seeded catalog identity. - Add regression coverage for complete inventories and access-filtered pages. ## Verification - Red: the database integration test requested 200 of 205 persisted tasks. Baseline returned 100. - Green: the same regression returns pages of 200 and five without duplicate IDs. - The native authority and Muse suites cover company exclusion, status filters, empty pages, invalid cursors and readable-only metadata. - Command: `pnpm --filter @paperclipai/server exec vitest run src/services/native-runtime/paperclip-runner-tool-authority.test.ts src/services/native-runtime/muse-native-visibility.test.ts`. - The test uses the real run-bound native authority and disposable PostgreSQL. It does not use an external model or change a deployed scanner. - Both native authority and Muse suites pass: 71 tests. Server direct `tsc --noEmit`, Runner `typecheck:typescript`, `node scripts/check-maps.mjs` and generated semantic contract checks pass. - Full typecheck and build cannot finish here because `cargo` is absent. The full local test command was stopped after about five minutes when the complete CI matrix was running. It has no complete verdict. Current-head CI passed, including typecheck, build, all general/serialized/Runner test suites and E2E. Greptile is 5/5 with no actionable findings at `392cb7424a1fa0ec73401d5e8a10a22b504fde32`. Optional Storybook and manual Docker workflows were skipped and are not executed coverage. The success-example correction also passed all 82 contract tests locally. ## Risks Task order changes to ascending ID. Pagination is not a snapshot. New or changed tasks can require a fresh scan. Each page retains the existing full company-list read and Muse authorization cost. This change adds no database query loop or new background work. Existing callers can still read `tasks`, but must follow `nextCursor` for a complete inventory. No scanner implementation was supplied. No migration or deployment is included. ## Model Used OpenAI GPT-6 through Codex, with tool use and code execution. The exact provider deployment ID and context limit 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) - [ ] 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 The task requires the supplied branch to stay unchanged. All applicable CI and review checks pass at the current head. Unmerged and not deployed. --------- Co-authored-by: devinfoley <139239+devinfoley@users.noreply.github.com> 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.
The chat scenario catalog uses these same IDs for human requests and expected outcomes. Its scenarios retain the access boundaries here; neither a CEO role nor a planned scenario grants board authority or establishes a working production tool binding.
Use full capability IDs when referring to access contracts outside their file:
onboarding/company means the company capability in onboarding.md in both maps.
The feature index lists feature and
capability IDs; IDs and references
explains entry-point references and stable naming.
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 is enabled by default, but explicit server,
company-allowlist and binding settings can narrow admission. It requires 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.
Connection-management reads support Standard, Ask and Plan; mutations require
Standard. Skill-test runs and nonstandard task-bridge keys cannot administer
connections. These gates supplement each operation's grants, resolved resource
and target scope, and responsible-user authority. See the
rollout policy
and connection authorization.
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.