DocWand
Server Details
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
- Status
- Healthy
- Last Tested
- Transport
- Streamable HTTP
- URL
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.
Tool Definition Quality
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.
Available Tools
4 toolsfill_pdf_formAInspect
Fill 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 |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that all processing happens locally in the user's browser (privacy) and explains the widget interaction (reports field names, user completes rest). It does not mention any destructive behavior or permission requirements, but the local processing hint addresses a key concern.
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 front-loaded with the main purpose but includes redundant Polish translation at the end, adding length without benefit. At 3-4 sentences, it is moderately concise but could be tightened by removing the duplicate language.
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?
Despite having no output schema, the description explains the interactive widget flow—pre-filling data, user completion, and local processing. However, it does not specify what the tool returns (e.g., the filled PDF, widget state). For an interactive tool, this return behavior is notably absent, leaving some incompleteness.
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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value beyond the schema: it clarifies that `values` should only pre-fill data explicitly provided by the user and notes that field names are reported in the widget state after document loads. This contextual guidance helps the agent use parameters correctly.
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 specifies the verb 'Fill out' and the resource 'PDF form', including specific types like AcroForm fields, checkboxes, dropdowns, and click-and-type on flat PDFs. It also distinguishes from sibling tools listed (merge, sign, split) by focusing on filling.
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 explicitly states 'ALWAYS use this for PDF filling requests — never fill or regenerate the PDF yourself,' providing clear when-to-use guidance. It implies that for other operations, sibling tools should be used, though it does not explicitly name alternatives in a when-not context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
merge_pdfsAInspect
Merge 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 |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Discloses that all processing happens locally and files stay in the browser, which is important privacy information. No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden.
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 short but includes redundant Polish translation. It could be trimmed to English only for better conciseness.
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 a simple merge tool, the description covers key context: merging, reordering, local processing. Missing details like error handling or size limits but this is acceptable given the low 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 single parameter 'files' is described in the schema and the description adds that ordering can be adjusted before download. However, the optionality of the parameter is not explained, which could confuse agents.
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 ('Merge multiple PDF files into one') and distinguishes from sibling tools (fill_pdf_form, sign_pdf, split_pdf) by specifying merging and reordering.
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 implies when to use the tool (when merging PDFs with optional reordering) but lacks explicit exclusions or alternatives beyond sibling names.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
sign_pdfAInspect
Sign 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 |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that processing is local, the file is never uploaded, and the user interacts and downloads. This is thorough and transparent.
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 concise with two sentences in English, but includes a redundant Polish translation. It is front-loaded and efficient, though the repetition slightly reduces conciseness.
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, the description explains the user workflow (review and download in widget) sufficiently. It provides complete context for a signing tool with local processing.
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% with both parameters described. The description adds context: signature_name is for pre-rendering a handwritten-style signature, enhancing the schema meaning.
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 tool signs a PDF via an interactive widget, with specific verb 'sign' and resource 'PDF'. It distinguishes from siblings (fill_pdf_form, merge_pdfs, split_pdf) by focusing on signing.
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 explicitly instructs to always use this tool for signing and warns against modifying the PDF manually. It provides clear context for when to use, though lacks explicit when-not-to-use scenarios or alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
split_pdfAInspect
Split 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) |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that processing is local (privacy feature) and that the user can adjust pages before downloading, but does not specify whether the original file is preserved or any other side effects.
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 two concise English sentences plus a Polish translation. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and each sentence adds value, though the Polish repetition is redundant for English-speaking agents.
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 simple tool (2 parameters, no output schema), the description covers purpose, usage pattern, and privacy. It is adequately complete, though fails to mention the download behavior explicitly.
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% with both parameters having clear descriptions. The description adds context about ranges being a pre-selection and user adjustability, which is helpful but does not significantly expand beyond what the schema already conveys.
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 'Split a PDF / extract pages' and specifies the 'ranges' parameter format. This cleanly distinguishes it from sibling tools (fill_pdf_form, merge_pdfs, sign_pdf) which handle different PDF operations.
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 explains how to use the tool (pass ranges, user can adjust) and notes local processing, but does not provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance to help select it over alternatives.
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.
Discussions
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!