Link Extractor — Extract all hyperlinks from a PDF or HTML file, or from pasted text. Other file types are scanned as raw text. [category: analyze]
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| file | Yes | PDF or HTML file. Other types (incl. DOCX) are scanned as raw bytes and usually yield few links. | |
| text | No | Direct text/HTML alternative to the file. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes safety, and the description adds useful behavioral context: it extracts ALL hyperlinks, supports pasted text, and falls back to raw-text scanning for unsupported file types. This goes beyond the structured annotation without contradicting it.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences deliver the core action, supported inputs, and fallback behavior, with the key purpose front-loaded. Minor redundancy exists because 'Link Extractor' repeats the title and the '[category: analyze]' tag adds metadata without advancing agent understanding.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a low-complexity, read-only tool with fully described parameters, the description is complete enough to invoke correctly: it states what is extracted, from which sources, and how other types are handled. There is no output schema, but 'extract all hyperlinks' adequately conveys the return concept, so no critical invocation information is missing.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% for both file and text parameters, and those schema descriptions already define the binary file format and the text/HTML alternative. The tool description mostly restates this information, adding no new parameter-level meaning, so the baseline 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses the specific verb 'Extract' with the resource 'all hyperlinks' and names the input sources (PDF, HTML, pasted text). This clearly differentiates it from generic siblings like analyze_file and analyze_pdf_inspector by scope and output, even without naming a sibling.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
It states supported input types and the raw-text fallback for other files, so the intended context is clear. However, it never says when to prefer this tool over related alternatives such as analyze_file, analyze_pdf_inspector, or web_scrape_page, nor does it give explicit exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Multiple tool pairs are near-identical: octopus_mkdir/octopus_make_folder and octopus_move/octopus_move_file are literal duplicates, analyze_hash/generate_hash both compute hashes, convert_word_to_pdf overlaps convert_document, and photo_compress/photo_compress_to_size plus pdf_thumbnails/pdf_to_images have fuzzy boundaries. The descriptions are detailed and cross-reference each other helpfully, but at 144 tools an agent will regularly misselect.
The dominant {category}_{verb}_{object} snake_case pattern (pdf_*, photo_*, convert_*, analyze_*, media_*) is largely consistent and predictable. However, outliers like chatwithyourpdf and describe_image break the category-prefix convention, and the octopus namespace mixes bare verbs (read, write, mkdir) with verb_noun forms (make_folder, move_file, search_meta) inconsistently.
144 tools is an extreme count for any MCP server. The broad scope (PDF, photo, video, audio, conversion, analysis, generation, file storage, web, e-sign) justifies some volume, but the count is inflated by batch and inspect variants (pdf_to_excel + batch + inspect), duplicate tools, and overlapping converters. An agent faces an overwhelming selection surface.
Per-domain coverage is remarkably deep: PDF spans merge/split/compress/protect/unlock/metadata/OCR/watermark and bidirectional conversion; photo covers editing, format conversion, face handling, OCR, and collage; file storage has full CRUD plus search. Minor gaps exist (no audio transcription, no video metadata editing, no deletion of PDF pages is actually covered via pdf_delete_pages) but the surface has no dead ends for its declared domains.
