Skip to main content
Glama

mdmagic-mcp-server

by io.github.MDMagic-MCP

estimate_conversion_cost

Read-onlyIdempotent

Estimate credit cost for a conversion BEFORE running it. Returns word count, page calculation (300 words/page), and a credit breakdown by format and template type. Use this when the user asks 'how much will this cost?' or when you suspect a conversion might exceed their balance — convert_document refuses to run if credits are insufficient, so estimating first is friendlier.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
contentYesMarkdown content to estimate credit cost for
pageSizeNoPage size for the document
orientationNoPage orientation
outputFormatYesOutput format(s): docx (DOCX only), pdf (DOCX+PDF), html (DOCX+HTML), all/all-formats (DOCX+PDF+HTML)
templateNameYesTemplate ID or name (UUID for custom templates, name for system templates)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedOutput schema / (root)
      Previous value: -{
-  "properties": {
-    "breakdown": {
-      "description": "Human-readable breakdown of how credits are calculated",
-      "type": "string"
-    },
-    "pageCount": {
-      "description": "Estimated page count (300 words/page)",
-      "type": "integer"
-    },
-    "totalCredits": {
-      "description": "Total credits required for this conversion",
-      "type": "integer"
-    },
-    "wordCount": {
-      "description": "Word count of the markdown content",
-      "type": "integer"
-    }
-  },
-  "required": [
-    "totalCredits"
-  ],
-  "type": "object"
-}New value: +null
  2. First observed

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare read-only and idempotent. The description adds value by disclosing the output structure (word count, page calculation, credit breakdown) and the pre-flight intent, going beyond annotation basics. No contradiction.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two sentences, front-loaded with purpose and output, then clear usage guidance. No filler or repetition.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The description covers return values and when to use the tool, sufficient for an estimation tool. It doesn't address potential nuances like pageSize/orientation impact on cost, but overall it provides a complete picture.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so all parameters are already described. The tool description mentions 'format and template type' but does not add meaningful parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Clearly states the tool estimates credit cost for a conversion before running it, with specific output details (word count, page calculation, credit breakdown). This distinguishes it from siblings like convert_document (which executes) and check_credit_balance (which checks balance).

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Provides explicit when-to-use guidance: when the user asks 'how much will this cost?' or when a conversion might exceed balance. Names convert_document as the alternative and explains why estimating first is friendlier.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All mdmagic-mcp-server toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: credit balance vs cost estimation, template listing scoped to all/built-in/custom, and conversion vs validation. The three list tools are explicitly named by scope, eliminating ambiguity.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tool names follow the same verb_noun snake_case pattern (check_, convert_, estimate_, get_, list_, recommend_, show_, validate_), making the API predictable and easy to navigate.

Tool Count5/5

10 tools is well within the ideal 3-15 range for a document conversion service. Each tool addresses a necessary step in the workflow (template selection, validation, cost estimation, conversion, credit monitoring) without redundancy.

Completeness4/5

The core lifecycle (pre-flight validation, cost estimation, conversion, balance checking, template discovery) is fully covered. Minor gaps exist—no template upload or settings update—but these are likely handled outside the MCP server, so the surface is complete for its intended agent workflows.

Resources