Reduce the file size of a PDF.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| quality | No | Compression preset. | medium |
| source_url | No | Public URL of the PDF. | |
| file_base64 | No | Base64-encoded PDF. | |
| remove_metadata | No | Strip PDF metadata to reduce size further. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
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 indicate idempotentHint and openWorldHint, but the description only states the goal. It does not disclose potential quality loss, file size limits, or that compression may be destructive depending on quality level. The description adds little beyond what annotations imply.
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 a single, concise sentence with no extraneous words. It is front-loaded but could benefit from additional context without becoming verbose.
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?
Given the presence of an output schema and 4 parameters, the description is minimal. It does not specify what the tool returns (e.g., a compressed PDF file or bytes) or mention that either source_url or file_base64 must be provided. The description is adequate but not comprehensive.
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%, so parameters are well-documented in the schema. The description does not add extra meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining how quality presets affect output or the mutual exclusivity of source_url and file_base64.
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 clearly states the tool's action ('Reduce the file size') and resource ('a PDF'). However, it does not differentiate this tool from sibling tools like compress_image or extract_pdf_text, leaving ambiguity about when to choose this over others.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., compress_image for images, merge_pdfs for combining). There is no mention of prerequisites, such as needing a PDF input, or when not to use it (e.g., for lossy vs lossless compression).
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.
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose, covering different file operations (compress, convert, extract, merge, split, etc.) and billing management. No two tools overlap in functionality.
Most tool names follow a verb_noun pattern (compress_image, protect_pdf), but a few deviate (images_to_pdf, list_supported_conversions) causing minor inconsistency. The pattern is largely predictable.
17 tools is slightly above the typical well-scoped range, but still reasonable given the breadth of file manipulation and billing operations. Each tool serves a distinct need.
The file conversion and PDF manipulation operations are well-covered (compress, convert, extract, merge, split, protect, etc.). The billing tools are complete for subscription and credit management. Minor gaps exist, such as batch operations or image format conversions.