Parse a document. Accepts a file path or sample_id (e.g. "sample_docx_formatting"). The hosted server requires a valid dp_ API key — get one via mcpAuth. Output formats: blocks (default), markdown, html, a2ui. requestId is reserved for future replay support.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| apiKey | Yes | ||
| filepath | Yes | ||
| requestId | Yes | ||
| outputFormat | Yes |
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?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals auth requirements, output format options with a default, and the non-functional requestId. This is strong transparency for a parse operation, though it doesn't discuss side effects or error 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?
Three sentences, front-loaded with purpose, and every sentence adds information. No redundancy or filler.
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?
Covers key aspects like inputs, auth, output formats, and requestId. However, requestId is required but its expected value is vague ('reserved for future replay'), no return structure is described, and there is no differentiation from sibling tools. These gaps prevent a higher score.
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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains filepath (or sample_id), outputFormat options, apiKey requirement, and requestId purpose. This adds substantial meaning beyond the bare schema, though exact format or allowed values are not fully specified.
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?
Clearly states 'Parse a document' and identifies key inputs (file path or sample_id) and output formats. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this tool from sibling parse tools like parseFileSecure or partitionGeneral, so it misses the top score.
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?
Gives clear context: requires a dp_ API key, lists output formats, and notes requestId is reserved for future replay. Does not explicitly say when to use this instead of alternatives, but the prerequisite and parameter details provide good usage direction.
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.
Most tools have clear, distinct purposes: parse, convert, estimate, formats, auth, auth-poll, account, upload, and feedback. The main ambiguity is that editDocument with an empty delta array behaves like a parse, overlapping with mcpParse.
Seven tools share a useful mcp prefix with PascalCase, but editDocument and getUploadUrl are camelCase and submit_feedback is snake_case. The casing and verb-style inconsistencies make the tool set feel less coherent than its overall design suggests.
Ten tools is a well-scoped size for this domain: authentication, account, upload, formatting, estimation, parsing, editing, conversion, and feedback are each represented. No tool feels redundant or like filler.
The surface covers the key parse workflow: get an API key, upload, estimate, parse, edit, convert, and check supported formats. Minor gaps exist, such as no explicit API-key revoke action and some output/workflow steps being delegated to the SDK/CLI.
