Extract text and optional tables from a PDF as structured JSON.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| pages | No | Optional pages/ranges to extract, e.g. '1-5'. | |
| source_url | No | Public URL of the PDF. | |
| file_base64 | No | Base64-encoded PDF. | |
| extract_tables | No | Whether to extract tables too. |
| 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?
The description states the tool extracts text and optionally tables as structured JSON, which adds behavioral context beyond the annotations (idempotentHint and openWorldHint). The annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent behavior, and the description aligns with that. No contradictions, and it provides useful output format details.
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?
A single, clear sentence with no unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the main action and result. Every part adds value.
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 tool has an output schema and simple parameters, the description is reasonably complete. It conveys the core functionality and output format. A minor gap: it does not mention that one of source_url or file_base64 must be provided, but that is covered in the schema.
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 all parameters are documented in the schema. The description adds minimal extra meaning (e.g., 'optional tables' is also in the schema). Baseline of 3 is appropriate since the description does not need to compensate.
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 action ('extract'), the resource ('text and optional tables from a PDF'), and the output format ('structured JSON'). It is specific and distinguishes the tool from its siblings, which are primarily for compression, conversion, or PDF manipulation, none of which extract text.
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 does not explicitly state when to use or not use this tool versus alternatives. However, the purpose is clear, and the sibling tools are sufficiently different (e.g., compress_pdf, split_pdf) that no confusion is likely. A small deduction for lack of explicit usage guidance.
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.