pymupdf4llm-mcpofficial
A
licenseNot graded
qualityB
maintenanceMCP server for exporting PDF to markdown, optimized for LLM consumption.
72
AGPL 3.0
Mdkit
by online.mdkit
Server Details
Document-to-Markdown MCP server — convert PDF, Office and HTML into LLM-ready Markdown.
If you are the author of this connector, you can claim ownership with GitHub, an HTTP challenge, or a DNS record. Claimed connector authors can inspect health checks, view analytics, and manage their listing.
- Status
- Healthy
- Last Tested
- Transport
- Streamable HTTP
- URL
- Repository
- getmdkit/mdkit
- GitHub Stars
- 0
Available Tools
3 toolsconvert_documentAInspect
Convert a document to Markdown synchronously (the fast lane).
Decode content_base64 (the raw file bytes, base64-encoded) and run
markitdown over it, returning {markdown, meta} where markdown is
the converted text and meta carries the source filename and the
output length in characters. Best for small office/HTML/text files;
for large or complex documents (or OCR-heavy PDFs) use
submit_conversion_job instead.
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| filename | Yes | ||
| content_base64 | Yes |
Output Schema
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
No output parameters | ||
TDQS
A4.6/5.0
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses the synchronous behavior, the conversion process (decode base64, run markitdown), and the exact return format {markdown, meta}. It does not cover failure modes or auth needs, but the described behavior is adequate for a converter tool.
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 concise paragraphs with clear front-loading. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the rest adds necessary detail. No wasted words.
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?
Given an output schema exists (so return structure is documented elsewhere), the description provides key context: synchronous execution, base64 decoding, markitdown usage, and sibling differentiation. It lacks detail on error handling or supported formats, but it's largely sufficient for a simple converter.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so description must compensate. It explains content_base64 as 'the raw file bytes, base64-encoded' and filename as the source (appearing in meta). This adds meaning beyond the bare schema, though it could be more explicit about file format or size constraints.
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?
The description clearly states the tool 'Convert a document to Markdown synchronously' and specifies it as the 'fast lane'. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by naming the alternative for large/complex documents.
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?
Explicit guidance: 'Best for small office/HTML/text files; for large or complex documents (or OCR-heavy PDFs) use submit_conversion_job instead'. This directly tells the agent when to use this tool versus the sibling.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_conversion_jobAInspect
Check the status of an asynchronous conversion job you submitted.
Returns {job_id, status, ...} for one of YOUR jobs (scoped to the
calling identity; another caller's job id is reported as not found). When
the job has succeeded, small results are inlined as markdown and
larger ones are returned as a result_url to fetch. A failed job
includes its error.
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| job_id | Yes |
Output Schema
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
No output parameters | ||
TDQS
A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description fully discloses key behaviors: response structure, scoping to caller's identity, handling of success (inlined vs. URL), and error details. This provides transparency without 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?
The description is two sentences, front-loaded with purpose, and includes essential behavior details without unnecessary words. Every sentence adds value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, output schema assumed), the description covers purpose, scope, status outcomes, and result handling. It is complete for an AI agent to use correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The only parameter 'job_id' lacks schema description (0% coverage), but the description adds meaning by stating it must be a job submitted by the caller and that others return not found. This compensates well.
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?
The description clearly states the tool checks the status of an asynchronous conversion job submitted by the user. It differentiates from sibling tools 'convert_document' and 'submit_conversion_job' by focusing on status checking, with scope limited to the calling identity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage after submitting a job and clarifies that it only works for jobs owned by the caller. It lacks explicit when-not to use or alternatives, but the context is clear enough for correct selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
submit_conversion_jobAInspect
Submit a document for asynchronous, high-fidelity conversion (docling).
Stores the uploaded bytes, then enqueues a convert.docling job (costs
10 credits, charged now). Returns {job_id, status, result_url} — poll
get_conversion_job with job_id (or supply webhook_url for a
signed completion callback). Requires an API key. Raises if the docling
backend is not configured for this deployment.
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| filename | Yes | ||
| webhook_url | No | ||
| content_base64 | Yes |
Output Schema
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
No output parameters | ||
TDQS
A4.1/5.0
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description fully discloses behavior: stores bytes, enqueues job, costs 10 credits charged immediately, returns specific fields, poll alternative, webhook callback, requires API key, raises if backend missing. This is comprehensive.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured with a clear main verb, bullet points for key details, and no redundant text. Slightly verbose in listing return fields but acceptable.
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?
Given the tool's complexity (async job, cost, error conditions, output schema), the description covers most aspects: purpose, return value usage, error cases, and alternative. Missing details on parameter constraints but overall adequate.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, yet the description only adds minimal context: filename is for identification, content_base64 is the bytes, webhook_url for callback. It does not explain format constraints or how each parameter affects behavior, leaving gaps for an AI agent.
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?
The description clearly states 'Submit a document for asynchronous, high-fidelity conversion (docling)', specifying the action, resource, and asynchronicity. It distinguishes from siblings 'convert_document' (likely synchronous) and 'get_conversion_job' (polling).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explains when to use (async conversion), mentions prerequisites (API key, backend config), and how to get results (poll with get_conversion_job or webhook). It does not explicitly contrast with convert_document, but the context is clear enough.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Tool Schema Changelog
Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
3 tool updates
- First observed
convert_document - First observed
get_conversion_job - First observed
submit_conversion_job
Frequently Asked Questions
Claiming proves that you control a remote MCP connector. It does not move, proxy, or interrupt the server.
Open the connector listing, choose Claim ownership, and sign in to Glama.
Complete one verification method:
GitHub identity — fastest for official registry listings. For a namespace such as
io.github.alice/server, link the matching GitHub user, then choose Claim with GitHub. An organization namespace such asio.github.acme/serveralso needs that organization to have installed the Glama AI GitHub App and approved its permissions, because GitHub discloses organization membership only to apps it has installed. Use HTTP or DNS when it has not.HTTP challenge — works when you can deploy a public file. Generate a token, publish the exact JSON Glama shows at
/.well-known/glama.jsonon the same origin as the connector, then choose Check HTTP challenge.DNS challenge — works when you control DNS but cannot change the server. Generate a token, create the exact TXT record Glama shows, wait for it to propagate, then choose Check DNS challenge.
After verification, Glama sends a confirmation email and gives you access to listing details, thumbnails, health checks, and analytics. Keep the HTTP file or DNS record in place: Glama periodically checks it and ownership remains verified while the token is discoverable.
The HTTP ownership file has this structure:
{
"$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/connector.json",
"claim": "glama_claim_..."
}Claim tokens are opaque, stable, and bound to the signed-in Glama account. They contain no email address or other personal information. If Glama can no longer discover a verified HTTP or DNS token, it starts a seven-day grace period before removing claim-based access. Restore the same token during that period to keep ownership verified. Never publish an email address, Glama session token, GitHub token, or connector credential as ownership proof.
If verification fails, confirm that you copied the current token exactly. The HTTP file must be public, return valid JSON with a successful HTTP response, and stay on the connector's origin. DNS changes may need more time to propagate. A claim cannot transfer to a different origin or hostname: if the connector target changes, Glama starts the grace period and the new target must be claimed separately after the previous claim is released.
For a connector linked to the official MCP Registry, registry updates continue to replace its name, description, and URL by default. After claiming, open Manage connector and enable Use Glama listing details as the source of truth if edits made on Glama should be preserved. Categories and thumbnails are always managed on Glama; registry linkage and technical connection settings continue to sync.
Control your server's listing on Glama, including description and metadata
Access analytics and receive server usage reports
Get monitoring and health status updates for your server
Feature your server to boost visibility and reach more users
To improve your MCP server's ranking:
Claim ownership of the server listing
Complete the server profile with an accurate description and thumbnail
Provide a test profile so Glama can connect to and evaluate the server
Keep tool definitions clear and complete to earn a high Tool Definition Quality Score (TDQS)
Route real usage through the Glama Gateway; more recorded successful server uses also improve the ranking
For users:
Full audit trail – every tool call is logged with inputs and outputs for compliance and debugging
Granular tool control – enable or disable individual tools per connector to limit what your AI agents can do
Centralized credential management – store and rotate API keys and OAuth tokens in one place
Change alerts – get notified when a connector changes its schema, adds or removes tools, or updates tool definitions, so nothing breaks silently
For server owners:
Proven adoption – public usage metrics on your listing show real-world traction and build trust with prospective users
Tool-level analytics – see which tools are being used most, helping you prioritize development and documentation
Direct user feedback – users can report issues and suggest improvements through the listing, giving you a channel you would not have otherwise
The connector status is unhealthy when Glama is unable to successfully connect to the server. This can happen for several reasons:
The server is experiencing an outage
The URL of the server is wrong
Credentials required to access the server are missing or invalid
If you are the owner of this MCP connector and would like to make modifications to the listing, including providing test credentials for accessing the server, please contact support@glama.ai.
Discussions
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!
Related MCP Connectors
Hosted MCP server: convert PDFs to clean, LLM-ready Markdown with tables, formulas and OCR.
Parse PDF/Word/PPT/HTML to Markdown; tables as JSON, image extraction, RAG chunking, page ranges.
Convert files, URLs, and documents to clean, AI-ready Markdown via MCP.
Convert PDF, DOCX, HTML, and URLs to clean, LLM-ready markdown with tables preserved
Related MCP Servers
- AlicenseAqualityBmaintenanceLocal MCP server that converts PDF, Word, PowerPoint, Excel and more to Markdown on your machine, enabling coding agents like Claude Code and Cursor to read office files in the repo.328MIT
- AlicenseBqualityDmaintenanceA universal MCP server for document processing, conversion, and automation. Handle PDF, DOCX, HTML, Markdown, and more through a unified API and toolset.1333139MIT
- FlicenseNot gradedqualityCmaintenanceAn MCP server that converts and processes document formats such as DOCX and PDF into Markdown, enabling AI assistants to work with document contents.-
Try in Browser
Glama MCP Gateway
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
TDQS
A4.4/5.0
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: synchronous conversion, async job submission, and status polling. No ambiguity.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tools follow a consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern (convert_document, get_conversion_job, submit_conversion_job).
Tool Count4/5
3 tools is appropriate for a conversion service, covering the core workflow without being overly sparse.
Completeness4/5
Covers sync and async conversion with status checking; missing job listing or cancellation but sufficient for basic needs.