Skip to main content
Glama
MDMagic-MCP

mdmagic-mcp-server

by MDMagic-MCP

MDMagic MCP Server

Convert Markdown to DOCX, PDF, and HTML using your own Word templates — your letterhead, your branding, your fonts. Plus 15 designer-built templates for when you don't have your own.

npm version MCP Registry Smithery Glama mcp.so license

MDMagic plugs straight into Claude, Cursor, VS Code, and any MCP-compatible AI assistant — giving them direct access to a professional document conversion pipeline (Pandoc + Microsoft Graph + Mammoth.js) and, more importantly, your templates. Upload your existing letterhead, stationery, brand guidelines, contract shells, or proposal templates — anything you already use in Microsoft Word — and your AI assistant can convert any Markdown directly into a polished document carrying your logo, fonts, colours, footers, page numbers, watermarks, and signature blocks. The output looks like it came from your design team, not from a generic AI export.

You: "Take this report and turn it into an Executive_Platinum PDF."

Claude: ✅ Done. Here's your secure download link.
        14-page PDF, 2.3 MB, expires in 60 minutes.

Install

You need an MDMagic account (free tier available) and your API key from your account page.

Claude Desktop

Add this to your claude_desktop_config.json:

{
  "mcpServers": {
    "mdmagic": {
      "command": "npx",
      "args": ["-y", "@mdmagic/mcp-server@latest"],
      "env": {
        "MDMAGIC_API_KEY": "mdmagic-xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx"
      }
    }
  }
}

Config file location:

  • macOS~/Library/Application Support/Claude/claude_desktop_config.json

  • Windows%APPDATA%\Claude\claude_desktop_config.json

  • Linux~/.config/Claude/claude_desktop_config.json

Restart Claude Desktop. The MDMagic tools will appear in the tool list.

Cursor

Add to ~/.cursor/mcp.json (or via Settings → MCP):

{
  "mcpServers": {
    "mdmagic": {
      "command": "npx",
      "args": ["-y", "@mdmagic/mcp-server@latest"],
      "env": {
        "MDMAGIC_API_KEY": "mdmagic-xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx"
      }
    }
  }
}

VS Code (with an MCP extension)

{
  "mcp.servers": {
    "mdmagic": {
      "command": "npx",
      "args": ["-y", "@mdmagic/mcp-server@latest"],
      "env": {
        "MDMAGIC_API_KEY": "mdmagic-xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx"
      }
    }
  }
}

Hosted (no install)

Don't want Node on the user's machine? Use the hosted endpoint:

{
  "mcpServers": {
    "mdmagic": {
      "url": "https://api.mdmagic.ai/mcp",
      "headers": {
        "x-api-key": "mdmagic-xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx"
      }
    }
  }
}

Same tools, same templates, served over Streamable HTTP. Useful for clients that don't run local processes.

Related MCP server: AI Group Markdown to Word MCP Server

What you can do

Once connected, ask your AI assistant things like:

  • "Convert this markdown to a PDF using the Executive_Platinum template."

  • "What templates do I have available?"

  • "How many credits will it cost to render this 800-word report as DOCX + PDF?"

  • "Render this in landscape, US Letter, with the Legal_Burgundy template."

  • "Check my credit balance."

The AI picks the right tool and returns a secure, time-limited download link.

Tools

Tool

What it does

convert_document

Convert Markdown → DOCX / PDF / HTML / all three. Returns a secure expiring URL.

validate_markdown

Pre-flight check before conversion. Catches malformed tables, unclosed code fences, and other syntax issues that would produce broken output.

estimate_conversion_cost

Pre-flight cost estimate based on word count, page count, format, and template type.

check_credit_balance

Current credit balance (subscription + purchased pools), plan status.

list_all_templates

Full template catalog: 15 built-in templates (grouped by category) + your custom uploads.

list_builtin_templates

Only the built-in templates: Business (5), Creative (6), Professional (2), Technical (2).

list_custom_templates

Only your custom uploaded templates.

get_template_details

Show available variants (page sizes × orientations) for a specific template.

recommend_template

Suggest the best built-in template for a described purpose ("Q4 board pack" → Executive_Platinum).

show_default_settings

Your default page size, orientation, and template preferences.

convert_document — input options

Three ways to provide the source:

  • content — raw markdown string (most common)

  • filePath — absolute path to a .md file (great for IDE workflows)

  • fileContent — base64-encoded markdown (for binary-safe transports)

Plus:

  • templateName — e.g. Executive_Platinum, Legal_Burgundy, or a custom template UUID

  • outputFormatdocx, pdf, html, all, or all-formats

  • pageSizeA4, A3, US_Letter, US_Legal, Executive

  • orientationPortrait or Landscape

Config

Variable

Default

Notes

MDMAGIC_API_KEY

(required)

Your personal API key from mdmagic.ai/account

MDMAGIC_BASE_URL

https://api.mdmagic.ai

Override only for local dev or staging

REQUEST_TIMEOUT

30000

Request timeout in ms

MCP_TRANSPORT

stdio

stdio (default) or http for self-hosted Streamable HTTP

MCP_HTTP_PORT

3001

Port for HTTP transport mode

MCP_HTTP_HOST

127.0.0.1

Bind address for HTTP transport mode

Most users will only ever set MDMAGIC_API_KEY.

Pricing

Conversions cost credits, calculated from page count and output format:

  • DOCX: 1 credit per page (base)

  • PDF: +1 credit per page

  • HTML: +1 credit per page

  • Custom templates: +1 credit per page

A 5-page report converted to DOCX + PDF + HTML using a custom template = 5 × (1 + 1 + 1 + 1) = 20 credits.

The estimate_conversion_cost tool returns exact numbers before you spend anything. The MCP also refuses to run if your balance is too low — no surprise bills.

Free-tier credits renew monthly. Paid plans and credit top-ups available at mdmagic.ai.

Privacy

  • No permanent storage. Documents pass through Microsoft Graph API for PDF rendering and are deleted within 5–10 seconds. Output files are deleted from MDMagic servers after download or after 60 minutes, whichever comes first.

  • Random filenames. Source files use UUIDs, never user-identifiable names.

  • Secure download URLs. Each conversion returns a one-time URL with session ID and download token. No public file directories.

  • API key isolation. Each user authenticates with their own key. No shared credentials.

Troubleshooting

MDMAGIC_API_KEY environment variable is required Set the env var in your client config (the env block in the JSON). Don't put it in a shell — npx won't see it.

Invalid API key format Keys must match mdmagic- followed by exactly 16 digits. Copy it cleanly from your account page.

Failed to connect to MDMagic API Check https://api.mdmagic.ai/health in a browser. If it's up, the issue is local network or firewall. Confirm MDMAGIC_BASE_URL (default https://api.mdmagic.ai) is reachable from the machine running the MCP.

Tools don't appear in Claude Desktop Fully quit and relaunch Claude Desktop after editing claude_desktop_config.json — a window close isn't enough.

Insufficient credits Use check_credit_balance to confirm balance, estimate_conversion_cost to preview costs, or top up at mdmagic.ai/account.

Local development

git clone https://github.com/MDMagic-MCP/mdmagic-mcp-server.git
cd mdmagic-mcp-server
npm install

# Set your API key (use http://localhost:3000 if running the API locally)
cp .env.example .env
# edit .env

# Build and inspect
npm run build
npm run inspector

The MCP Inspector (npm run inspector) launches a web UI for poking the server tool-by-tool — useful when adding new tools or debugging argument validation.

Run tests with npm test.

License

MIT — see LICENSE.

Available Tools

10 tools
check_credit_balanceA
Read-onlyIdempotent
Inspect

Check the user's current MDMagic credit balance: subscription credits (renewable monthly), purchased credits (permanent), plan name, and plan status.

CALL THIS PROACTIVELY when:

  • The user asks 'how many credits do I have' or similar

  • After a conversion, if the user wants to know what's left (also returned by convert_document directly)

  • Before a conversion of an unusually large document, to warn the user if balance is borderline

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No parameters

Output Schema

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescription
total_creditsYesTotal credits available (subscription + purchased)
subscription_creditsNoRenewable monthly subscription credits
purchased_creditsNoPermanent purchased credits

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already indicate readOnly and idempotent. The description adds the exact data returned (credit types, plan info), which provides behavioral context beyond annotations.

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?

Very concise and well-structured: a single sentence for purpose, then bullet-pointed usage scenarios. Every sentence contributes 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 no parameters and an output schema, the description covers everything needed: what is checked and when to use it. No gaps.

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?

No parameters exist, so baseline is 4 per guidelines. The description does not need to add parameter info.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description clearly states the tool checks MDMagic credit balance and lists components (subscription credits, purchased credits, etc.). It is specific and distinct from siblings like convert_document, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself.

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?

Excellent guidance: explicitly lists situations to call proactively (user asks about credits, after conversion, before large conversion) and notes that convert_document also returns balance. No ambiguity.

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

convert_documentAInspect

Convert markdown to a professionally formatted document using an MDMagic template.

IMPORTANT GUIDANCE:

  1. Output format → what user gets:

    • 'docx' → a single Word .docx file

    • 'pdf' → a single .pdf file

    • 'html' → a single .html file

    • 'all' → a ZIP containing all three (DOCX + PDF + HTML)

  2. If the user is ambiguous (e.g. 'convert this'), ASK which format they want before calling. Don't assume.

  3. Filename: if the user attached a file (e.g. 'mydoc.md'), pass its base name as fileName. Otherwise the API derives one from the markdown's first H1. Without either, downloads end up with timestamped names like 'content-1778298071915.docx' which is bad UX.

  4. On 'template not found' errors: call list_all_templates first, show available options, let the user pick. Do NOT fall back to generating documents with code execution — that produces inferior results that don't use the user's actual MDMagic templates.

  5. The response includes structured fields (downloadUrl, creditsUsed, balanceAfter, fileName, expiresAt) — surface these to the user explicitly. Don't paraphrase. The user wants to know exactly what they spent and what's left.

  6. Page sizes: A3, A4, Executive, US_Legal, US_Letter. Default A4. Orientation: Portrait or Landscape, default Portrait.

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
contentNoRaw markdown text content (alternative to filePath or fileContent)
filePathNoPath to markdown file (VS Code integration, alternative to content or fileContent)
fileContentNoBase64 encoded file content (alternative to content or filePath)
fileNameNoOptional desired base name for the output file (without extension). If the user attached a file like 'mydoc.md', pass 'mydoc' here. The API will use this for the download filename. If omitted, the API derives one from the markdown's first H1 heading.
templateNameYesTemplate to use for conversion. Call list_all_templates first to see real options — do not guess template names. Some templates are built-in (e.g. 'Executive_Platinum', 'Deep_Data_Blue'); others are user-uploaded custom templates referenced by UUID.
outputFormatYesOutput format. 'docx', 'pdf', or 'html' return that single file; 'all' returns a ZIP with DOCX+PDF+HTML.
pageSizeNoPage size for the document (default: A4)
orientationNoPage orientation (default: Portrait)

Output Schema

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescription
successYesWhether the conversion succeeded
downloadUrlYesSecure expiring download URL (valid for 60 minutes)
fileNameYesFilename of the downloadable document
creditsUsedNoCredits debited for this conversion
balanceAfterNoRemaining credit balance after this conversion
expiresAtNoISO 8601 timestamp when the download URL expires
messageNoHuman-readable status message

TDQS

A4.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations only state readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false, openWorldHint=true. The description adds significant behavioral context: output format behavior, filename derivation logic, error handling procedure, response fields to surface, and default page settings. This goes well beyond what annotations provide.

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 structured with numbered points and clear headings, making it easy to parse. It is front-loaded with the core purpose. While it is relatively long (6 points of guidance), each point is necessary for correct usage, so the length is justified and no information is redundant.

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 complexity (8 parameters, 2 required, multiple output formats, error handling, response fields), the description covers all crucial aspects: input sources, output options, error recovery, response structure, page settings, and defaults. No important aspect is omitted. The description compensates for the missing output schema details by specifying the fields to surface.

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

Parameters5/5

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

The input schema has 100% description coverage, yet the description adds richer context: it explains importance of passing fileName for UX, warns not to guess templateName but to call list_all_templates, clarifies outputFormat values, and documents defaults for pageSize and orientation. This adds meaning beyond the schema.

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 starts with a clear, specific verb 'Convert markdown to a professionally formatted document using an MDMagic template', which precisely states the action and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools (like list_all_templates or check_credit_balance) by being the only conversion tool.

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?

The description provides explicit when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance, e.g., asking users for format if ambiguous, not falling back to code generation on template missing, and instead calling list_all_templates. It includes concrete actions like 'if the user is ambiguous... ASK' and 'on template not found errors: call list_all_templates first'.

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

estimate_conversion_costA
Read-onlyIdempotent
Inspect

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.

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

Output Schema

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescription
wordCountNoWord count of the markdown content
pageCountNoEstimated page count (300 words/page)
totalCreditsYesTotal credits required for this conversion
breakdownNoHuman-readable breakdown of how credits are calculated

TDQS

A4.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly=true, destructive=false, idempotent=true. Description adds context that convert_document refuses if insufficient credits, explaining the behavioral context of the estimate. No contradictions.

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?

Three sentences, each valuable: first states purpose, second lists return values, third gives when-to-use guidance. No fluff.

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 5 parameters with full schema descriptions and an output schema (present), the description effectively covers usage context, behavioral traits, and relationship to sibling tool convert_document. Complete for an estimation tool.

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 has 100% coverage with descriptions for all 5 parameters. The description adds value by explaining that the estimate includes credit breakdown by format and template type, and mentions the 300 words/page calculation, which provides additional insight into how parameters affect the result.

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 it estimates credit cost before conversion, specifies return values (word count, page calculation, credit breakdown), and distinguishes itself from convert_document by mentioning it is friendly to use before running the actual conversion.

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?

Explicitly tells when to use: when user asks 'how much will this cost?' or when suspecting insufficient balance. Also contrasts with convert_document that refuses if credits are insufficient, making the estimation alternative clear.

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

get_template_detailsA
Read-onlyIdempotent
Inspect

Show available variants (page sizes and orientations) for a specific template. All MDMagic templates support the full 5×2 matrix: A3, A4, Executive, US_Legal, US_Letter × Portrait/Landscape. Use this when the user asks 'does this template come in Legal Landscape?' or 'what sizes are available?' — confirms the variant before convert_document runs.

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
templateNameYesTemplate ID or name (e.g. Executive_Platinum, or a UUID for custom templates)

Output Schema

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescription
templateYes
pageSizesYesSupported page sizes
orientationsYesSupported orientations

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint. Description adds: all templates support a 5x2 matrix, and it serves as a pre-check for convert_document. This enriches behavioral context 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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with purpose, followed by usage examples. Every sentence is informative and necessary. 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?

Covers purpose, usage, and output context (matrix of sizes). With an output schema present, return details are not needed. Slight gap: no mention of error handling for invalid templates, but overall sufficient for a simple tool.

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% with a clear description of templateName. Description doesn't add new parameter details (e.g., format specifics) beyond schema, which is adequate. Baseline 3 applies as schema already covers the parameter.

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?

Description clearly states 'Show available variants (page sizes and orientations) for a specific template', specifying verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like list_all_templates and explicitly ties to convert_document, making purpose unambiguous.

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?

Provides explicit example queries ('does this template come in Legal Landscape?') and advises using before convert_document. While it lacks explicit alternatives or when-not-to-use, the context is clear and actionable.

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

list_all_templatesA
Read-onlyIdempotent
Inspect

List all 15 built-in MDMagic templates plus any custom templates the user has uploaded.

CALL THIS PROACTIVELY when:

  • The user mentions a template by name (verify it exists before convert_document)

  • The user asks 'what templates are available' or similar

  • A previous convert_document call returned 'template not found'

  • The user describes the look they want without naming a template (so you can suggest a real one)

Returns: name, description, type (built-in vs custom), and category. Categories are: Business (5 templates), Creative (6), Professional (2), Technical (2). Use the optional category filter to narrow recommendations (e.g. 'for legal documents' → category: 'Professional').

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
includeDetailsNoInclude template details like available page sizes and orientations (default: false)
categoryNoOptional filter — return only built-in templates in this category. Custom templates are always included regardless. Categories: Business (executive/financial), Creative (designer/artistic/novelty), Professional (legal), Technical (code/data documentation).

Output Schema

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescription
builtinCountNoNumber of built-in templates returned
customCountNoNumber of custom templates returned
templatesYesAll matching templates

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Adds value beyond annotations by describing return fields (name, description, type, category) and category counts, plus noting custom templates always included regardless of filter.

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?

Front-loaded with main purpose, uses bullet points for usage scenarios, but could be slightly more concise without losing clarity.

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?

Sufficiently covers what the tool returns and usage patterns, though output schema is not fully utilized for additional structure.

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 has 100% coverage but description reinforces usage of category filter for narrowing recommendations and adds context about custom templates.

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 specifies it lists 15 built-in MDMagic templates plus custom templates, distinguishing it from siblings like list_builtin_templates and list_custom_templates.

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-call scenarios: verify template existence, answer 'what templates', handle 'template not found' errors, and suggest templates when user describes look without naming one.

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

list_builtin_templatesA
Read-onlyIdempotent
Inspect

List the 15 built-in MDMagic templates, grouped by category. Same as list_all_templates but excludes the user's custom uploads. Use this when the user asks specifically about MDMagic's bundled templates rather than their personal ones.

Categories available: Business (5), Creative (6), Professional (2), Technical (2).

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
includeDetailsNoInclude template details like available page sizes and orientations (default: false)
categoryNoOptional filter — return only templates in this category.

Output Schema

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescription
countNoNumber of templates returned
templatesYesMatching built-in templates

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint. Description adds category grouping and count details but no additional behavioral caveats.

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 sentences with front-loaded purpose and clear structure.

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?

Simple read-only tool with output schema present; description fully covers purpose, usage, and parameter context.

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 coverage 100%, description mentions categories and optional filter, adding grouping and count context beyond schema.

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 it lists the 15 built-in MDMagic templates grouped by category, and distinguishes from list_all_templates and list_custom_templates by excluding custom uploads.

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?

Explicitly says to use this when the user asks about bundled templates rather than personal ones, differentiating from sibling tools.

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

list_custom_templatesA
Read-onlyIdempotent
Inspect

List only the user's custom-uploaded Word templates. Use this when the user asks about their own templates ('show me my templates', 'do I have a letterhead?'). Custom templates are referenced by UUID, not name, when calling convert_document.

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
includeDetailsNoInclude template details like available page sizes and orientations (default: false)

Output Schema

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescription
countNoNumber of custom templates returned
templatesYesUser's custom templates

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint and idempotentHint; description adds behavioral context that it only lists custom templates and that templates are referenced by UUID. No contradictions with annotations.

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 usage guidance without any unnecessary words.

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 simple tool (1 optional parameter, output schema exists, annotations cover safety), the description is complete: it specifies the scope (custom only), links to a related tool, and the schema and annotations provide full parameter and behavioral details.

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?

The input schema has one parameter (includeDetails) with full description coverage (100%). The tool description does not add extra meaning to this parameter, so baseline score of 3 applies.

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 verb 'List' and the specific resource 'user's custom-uploaded Word templates'. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_all_templates and list_builtin_templates by focusing on custom templates and mentioning UUID referencing.

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?

Description explicitly provides scenarios for use ('when the user asks about their own templates') and gives guidance on using templates with convert_document via UUID. It does not list when not to use, but the context is clear enough for decision-making.

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

recommend_templateA
Read-onlyIdempotent
Inspect

Suggest the best built-in template(s) for a described purpose. Use this when the user describes WHAT the document is (e.g. 'Q4 board pack', 'API reference', 'wedding invitation', 'legal contract') without naming a template. Returns ranked recommendations with rationale.

Why this exists: AI assistants often guess template names that don't exist. This tool maps purpose → real template names from MDMagic's catalog, so convert_document doesn't fail with 'template not found'.

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
purposeYesFree-text description of the document's purpose. Examples: 'Q4 board pack for investors', 'restaurant menu', 'developer API documentation', 'wedding invitation'.
topNNoHow many recommendations to return (1-5, default 3)

Output Schema

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescription
purposeNoEchoes back the purpose that was matched
rationaleNoWhy these templates were picked
recommendationsYesRanked list of template IDs to pass to convert_document

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare the tool as read-only and idempotent. The description adds value by stating that it 'returns ranked recommendations with rationale', which is behavioral context not covered by annotations. No contradictions.

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 concise and front-loaded, with the first sentence stating the core action. Two paragraphs: one for usage and one for rationale. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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?

The description is complete for a two-parameter tool with existing output schema. It explains the input, output (ranked recommendations with rationale), and the problem it solves, linking to the sibling tool convert_document.

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?

Input schema has 100% coverage with detailed descriptions for both parameters (purpose and topN). The tool description does not add further explanation beyond the schema, so baseline score of 3 applies.

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's purpose: 'Suggest the best built-in template(s) for a described purpose.' It uses the specific verb 'suggest' and resource 'built-in templates', and explicitly distinguishes from sibling tools like list_all_templates by noting that this tool maps purpose to real template names to avoid conversion failures.

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?

The description explicitly states when to use this tool: 'when the user describes WHAT the document is (e.g. ...) without naming a template.' It also explains why it exists (to prevent AI assistants from guessing non-existent templates) and implicitly indicates not to use when a template name is already known.

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

show_default_settingsA
Read-onlyIdempotent
Inspect

Show the user's default paper size and orientation preferences (set on their account page). Useful when the user hasn't specified pageSize/orientation explicitly — call this to honor their defaults instead of using A4/Portrait blindly.

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No parameters

Output Schema

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescription
default_page_sizeYesUser's preferred page size
default_orientationYesUser's preferred page orientation

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint. The description adds context about reading account page preferences, which aligns with annotations and gives slightly more insight into the data source.

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 only two sentences, front-loading the purpose and immediately following with usage guidance. Every word adds value with no redundancy.

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 has no parameters and has an output schema, the description sufficiently covers purpose and usage. No additional details are necessary for correct invocation.

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?

No parameters exist, and schema coverage is 100%. The description does not need to elaborate on parameters; baseline score of 4 for zero-parameter tools 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?

The description clearly states the tool shows default paper size and orientation preferences from the user's account page, using specific verb 'show' and resource 'defaults'. It distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing on a specific setting retrieval.

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?

The description explicitly advises when to use this tool (when user hasn't specified pageSize/orientation) and contrasts with a default behavior (A4/Portrait), providing clear context for appropriate invocation.

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

validate_markdownA
Read-onlyIdempotent
Inspect

Pre-flight markdown validation BEFORE conversion. Catches malformed tables (mismatched pipes), unclosed code fences, broken task lists, and unsupported syntax. Returns a green/amber/red status plus the detected markdown features.

CALL THIS PROACTIVELY when:

  • The user is about to convert a long document (>5 pages) — validating first is cheap; running a doomed conversion costs credits

  • The user reports a previous conversion produced broken output

  • You generated the markdown yourself and want to verify it's clean before spending credits

Returns: status (green=safe, amber=minor issues, red=will likely break), detected features (tables, code blocks, task lists, math), and a human-readable message.

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
contentYesMarkdown content to validate
filenameNoOptional filename label for the response (defaults to 'content.md')

Output Schema

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescription
filenameNoFilename label echoed back
statusYesValidation verdict
messageYesHuman-readable explanation of any issues
inputFormatNoDetected markdown flavour (e.g. gfm, commonmark)
additionalPandocFlagsNoPandoc flags that will be applied
detectedFeaturesNoMap of markdown features found in the content

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond annotations (readOnly, idempotent), the description reveals that validation is cheap, returns a green/amber/red status plus detected features, and helps avoid costly conversion failures. No contradictions with annotations.

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 opening, bulleted usage guidelines, and a return summary. It is appropriately sized but could be slightly more concise without losing 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?

For a simple validation tool with full schema coverage and an output schema, the description covers purpose, when to use, what it detects, and what it returns. No missing critical information.

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 the description adds minimal extra meaning to parameters. It does not elaborate on the content or filename beyond what the schema already specifies, but the return value description compensates slightly.

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 'Pre-flight markdown validation BEFORE conversion' and lists specific issues caught (malformed tables, unclosed code fences, etc.). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like convert_document, which performs the actual conversion.

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?

The description explicitly provides three scenarios when to call the tool proactively: before converting a long document, after broken output, and when verifying self-generated markdown. It contrasts with the cost of a failed conversion, offering clear guidance.

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.

  1. 10 tool updatesv0.1.0
    • First observedcheck_credit_balance
    • First observedconvert_document
    • First observedestimate_conversion_cost
    • First observedget_template_details
    • First observedlist_all_templates
    • First observedlist_builtin_templates
    • First observedlist_custom_templates
    • First observedrecommend_template
    • First observedshow_default_settings
    • First observedvalidate_markdown

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Each tool has a distinct and non-overlapping purpose—balance checking, conversion, cost estimation, template listing/details, recommendations, defaults, and validation. No two tools could be confused.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tools use a consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern (e.g., list_all_templates, validate_markdown), making the set predictable and easy to navigate.

Tool Count5/5

With 10 tools, the count is well-scoped for a document conversion service. Each tool addresses a necessary step in the user workflow without unnecessary bloat.

Completeness5/5

The tool surface covers the full lifecycle: template discovery, defaults retrieval, markdown validation, cost estimation, credit checking, conversion, and post-conversion feedback. No obvious gaps for the stated purpose.

Maintenance

ActivityInactive
ResponsivenessNo issues

Resources

Unclaimed servers have limited discoverability.

Looking for Admin?

If you are the server author, to access and configure the admin panel.

Related MCP Connectors

Related MCP Servers

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/MDMagic-MCP/mdmagic-mcp-server'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server