Rotate PDF — Rotate pages of a PDF by 90, 180, or 270 degrees — all pages or specific page numbers. [category: pdf]
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| file | Yes | Input PDF (max 25MB) | |
| pages | No | Page ranges e.g. '1-3,5'. Empty = ALL pages — do NOT send 'all'. | |
| rotation | No | Degrees clockwise. The field name is 'rotation' — not 'angle'. | |
| outputName | No | Optional custom output filename. |
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 signal that this is neither read-only nor destructive, but the description adds no further behavioral context: it does not state whether a new PDF is returned, whether the original file is modified, or what the output format is. The only added detail, page-range selection, is more about parameter scope than behavior.
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 one efficient sentence, front-loaded with the tool name and core action, followed by essential options. It contains no filler or redundant restatement of the schema, and the category tag is unobtrusive.
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?
All four parameters are fully documented in the schema, and the description covers the core operation. However, with no output schema, the description does not explain what the tool returns (e.g., a rotated PDF file) or clarify that the input is not altered. This is adequate but not fully complete for an agent invoking the tool.
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 file size, page-range format, rotation enum, and field-name warning all documented in the schema. The description's mention of 'all pages or specific page numbers' mirrors the schema's pages parameter without adding new semantic value. 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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Rotate pages of a PDF by 90, 180, or 270 degrees.' It clearly distinguishes rotation from sibling operations like cropping, deleting, extracting, or reordering. The 'all pages or specific page numbers' scope adds further precision.
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 gives context about what the tool does and its page-scope options, but it does not explicitly say when to use this tool over alternatives like pdf_reverse or pdf_reorder. No when-not-to-use guidance or sibling references are provided, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name and description alone.
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.
