Skip to main content
Glama

DocWand

by app.docwand.mcp

fill_pdf_form

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.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
fileNoPDF form from the conversation to fill
valuesNoField 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_nameNoOptional: the signer's full name as a handwritten-style signature

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: 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.

Conciseness4/5

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.

Completeness4/5

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.

Parameters4/5

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.

Purpose5/5

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.

Usage Guidelines5/5

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.

All DocWand toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: filling forms, merging documents, signing, and splitting pages. There is no ambiguity or overlap between them.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tool names follow a consistent verb_pdf_noun pattern using snake_case, making them predictable and easy to understand.

Tool Count5/5

With only 4 tools, the server is well-scoped for a PDF manipulation toolkit, covering essential operations without unnecessary bloat.

Completeness4/5

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.

Resources