Reorder PDF Pages — Reorder the pages of a PDF by supplying the desired page sequence. [category: pdf]
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| file | Yes | Input PDF (max 25MB) | |
| order | Yes | Complete new page order — EVERY page exactly once, comma-separated, e.g. '3,1,2' for a 3-page PDF. Partial orders, duplicates, or missing pages are rejected with a 400. | |
| password | No | Optional password for encrypted PDFs. | |
| outputName | No | Optional custom output basename. |
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?
Annotations already indicate that the tool is not read-only and not destructive, which helps set expectations. The description itself adds little beyond the reordering mechanism and does not state what is returned or whether the original file is preserved. The order-validation behavior is documented in the schema, not the description, so the description provides only modest behavioral context beyond annotations.
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?
The description is very short and the core message is front-loaded. It loses a point for mild redundancy: the title 'Reorder PDF Pages' is effectively repeated in the description, and the '[category: pdf]' tag is boilerplate noise.
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?
The parameter schemas and annotations cover the input constraints and safety profile well. The main gap is the absence of an output schema and any description of the return value, so an agent does not know what the tool yields after reordering. For a transformation tool with no output schema, some mention of the result format is needed for full completeness.
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%, with each parameter already explained in the input schema. The tool description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 a specific verb ('Reorder') and resource ('pages of a PDF'), and further clarifies the method ('by supplying the desired page sequence'). This distinguishes it from related siblings like pdf_reverse or pdf_extract_pages by implying an arbitrary custom order rather than a simple transformation.
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?
The description implies the use case: when a PDF's pages need to be placed in a custom sequence. However, it provides no explicit guidance about when to prefer this tool over alternatives such as pdf_reverse, pdf_extract_pages, or pdf_split, and it does not mention any exclusions or prerequisites.
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.
