DocWand signs and fills PDFs without uploading them anywhere. Attach a PDF to the chat and say what you need — "fill out this form and sign it with my name" — and DocWand opens an interactive widget: form fields pre-filled from your message, a handwritten-style signature ready to place, checkboxes you tick with one click, and click-to-type on flat documents. The whole PDF engine runs inside the wi
Glama MCP Gateway
Connect through Glama MCP Gateway for full control over tool access and complete visibility into every call.
Full call logging
Every tool call is logged with complete inputs and outputs, so you can debug issues and audit what your agents are doing.
Tool access control
Enable or disable individual tools per connector, so you decide what your agents can and cannot do.
Managed credentials
Glama handles OAuth flows, token storage, and automatic rotation, so credentials never expire on your clients.
Usage analytics
See which tools your agents call, how often, and when, so you can understand usage patterns and catch anomalies.
Average 4.1/5 across 4 of 4 tools scored.
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: filling forms, merging documents, signing, and splitting pages. There is no ambiguity or overlap between them.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_pdf_noun pattern using snake_case, making them predictable and easy to understand.
With only 4 tools, the server is well-scoped for a PDF manipulation toolkit, covering essential operations without unnecessary bloat.
The set covers common PDF tasks (fill, merge, sign, split), but is missing potential operations like compression or conversion, though these are not essential for the core purpose.
fill_pdf_formAInspectFill out a PDF form in an interactive widget (AcroForm fields, checkboxes, dropdowns — or click-and-type on flat PDFs). Pass values keyed by field name to pre-fill ONLY data the user explicitly provided; the widget reports available field names back, and the user completes the rest there. ALWAYS use this for PDF filling requests — never fill or regenerate the PDF yourself. All processing happens locally in the user's browser. Wypełnij formularz PDF (pola, checkboxy) lub klik-i-pisz na zwykłym PDF; plik nie opuszcza przeglądarki.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| file | No | PDF form from the conversation to fill | |
| values | No | Field values keyed by AcroForm field name (string for text/dropdown, boolean for checkboxes). Field names are reported in the widget state after the document loads. | |
| signature_name | No | Optional: the signer's full name as a handwritten-style signature |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description fully discloses key behaviors: interactive widget usage, local processing in the user's browser, and the workflow where the widget reports field names for user completion. 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.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Main purpose front-loaded. The Polish translation is redundant and slightly increases length. Still efficient overall.
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 interactive nature and no output schema, description explains the widget state and field reporting. Enough for an agent to understand invocation flow.
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 100% and description adds useful context: 'values keyed by field name', specifies types (string/boolean), and explains optional signature_name. Some redundancy with schema but adds usage nuance.
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 'Fill out a PDF form' with specific resource types (AcroForm fields, checkboxes, dropdowns, flat PDFs). This directly contrasts with sibling tools (merge, sign, split).
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?
Explicitly instructs 'ALWAYS use this for PDF filling requests — never fill or regenerate the PDF yourself.' Provides clear when-to-use guidance and warns against alternative approaches.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
merge_pdfsAInspectMerge multiple PDF files into one. The user can reorder files before downloading. All processing happens locally in the user's browser. Połącz kilka plików PDF w jeden; kolejność można zmienić przed pobraniem; pliki nie opuszczają przeglądarki.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| files | No | PDF files from the conversation to merge, in order |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Discloses local processing and that files remain in browser, which is critical for privacy. Adds reordering capability beyond basic merge.
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?
Contains unnecessary Polish duplicate text that adds no value for English context; could be half as long.
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?
Explains core functionality and privacy, but lacks details on output, file size limits, or progress feedback.
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 describes 'files' parameter; description adds that user can reorder before download, providing operational context beyond schema.
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 'Merge multiple PDF files into one' and mentions reordering, distinguishing it from siblings like split_pdf and sign_pdf.
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?
Implies usage context (reordering, local processing) but no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use compared to alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
sign_pdfAInspectSign a PDF: opens an interactive widget where the user draws, types or uploads a signature and places it on the document. Optionally pass signature_name to pre-render a handwritten-style signature. ALWAYS use this for PDF signing requests — never sign or modify the PDF yourself; the user reviews and downloads in the widget. All processing happens locally in the user's browser — the file is never uploaded. Podpisz PDF: narysuj, wpisz lub wgraj podpis i umieść go na dokumencie; plik nie opuszcza przeglądarki.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| file | No | PDF file from the conversation to sign | |
| signature_name | No | Optional: the signer's full name, rendered as a handwritten-style signature the user can place and adjust |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Discloses key behaviors: interactive widget, local processing (never uploaded), optional signature_name for pre-rendered signature. No annotations provided, but description covers core aspects. Lacks mention of return value or error conditions, but sufficient for the interactive nature.
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?
Front-loaded with key information in English, followed by Polish translation. Could be more concise by omitting duplicate translation, but still efficient and clear.
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?
For an interactive signing tool with no output schema, the description provides sufficient context: widget behavior, local processing, optional parameter. Lacks details on return value or edge cases, but adequate for the task.
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 baseline is 3. The description reiterates the schema's detail for signature_name but adds no new meaning. File parameter is mentioned briefly.
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 it opens an interactive widget for PDF signing, with specific actions (draw, type, upload). Distinct from sibling tools like fill_pdf_form, merge_pdfs, and split_pdf.
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?
Explicitly instructs to 'ALWAYS use this for PDF signing requests' and warns not to sign or modify the PDF directly, providing clear guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
split_pdfAInspectSplit a PDF / extract pages. Pass ranges like "1-3, 5" to pre-select pages; the user can adjust on thumbnails before downloading. All processing happens locally in the user's browser. Podziel PDF / wyodrębnij strony (zakresy np. "1-3, 5"); plik nie opuszcza przeglądarki.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| file | No | PDF file from the conversation to split | |
| ranges | No | Page ranges to extract, e.g. "1-3, 5, 8-10" (order matters) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description must fully disclose behavior. It mentions local processing (privacy) but omits important details: whether the original file is modified, required permissions, size limits, or what happens if no ranges are given (e.g., split every page individually). The description is incomplete for a mutation-like operation.
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 reasonably concise but includes a Polish translation that duplicates English content without benefit for English-speaking agents. It could be shortened while retaining key points, making it less efficient.
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 no output schema and limited annotations, the description should cover expected output format, default behavior without 'ranges' (e.g., splits all pages), and constraints like maximum pages or file size. These are missing, leaving the agent under-informed for a tool with moderate complexity.
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?
The schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions. The description adds value by explaining how to format the 'ranges' parameter (e.g., '1-3, 5') and noting that the user can adjust selections before downloading, which aids understanding beyond the schema.
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 explicitly states the tool's function as 'Split a PDF / extract pages' and gives a usage example with ranges. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like merge_pdfs (combining) and fill_pdf_form (form filling), satisfying a specific verb+resource pattern.
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 tells when to use the tool (to split or extract pages) and hints at the interactive workflow ('user can adjust on thumbnails'). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, though the sibling names provide indirect guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Claim this connector by publishing a /.well-known/glama.json file on your server's domain with the following structure:
{
"$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/connector.json",
"maintainers": [{ "email": "your-email@example.com" }]
}The email address must match the email associated with your Glama account. Once published, Glama will automatically detect and verify the file within a few minutes.
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
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.
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!
