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 |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses that all processing is local (privacy) and that users can reorder files, but lacks details on error handling, file size limits, or authorization needs. Since annotations are absent, the description carries full burden and is partially adequate.
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 and front-loaded with the main action, but includes redundant Polish text that duplicates the English content, wasting space. Otherwise 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?
With one simple parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the core functionality and local processing. However, it lacks details on return value, constraints (max files/size), and error cases, leaving gaps for an agent.
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 input schema has one array parameter 'files' with a description. Schema coverage is 100%, so the description adds little beyond restating the parameter's purpose. No extra semantic detail provided in the tool description.
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 merges multiple PDFs into one, with ability to reorder. Name and purpose align, and it's distinct from siblings (fill_pdf_form, sign_pdf, 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?
The description implies usage for merging PDFs and mentions reordering and local processing, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like splitting or filling forms. No exclusion criteria given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool targets a distinct PDF operation: form filling, merging, signing, and splitting. No overlap or ambiguity.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case (e.g., fill_pdf_form, merge_pdfs), making them predictable.
Four tools cover the core PDF manipulation tasks without excess or deficiency. The count is well-scoped for the server's purpose.
The set covers essential PDF operations (fill, merge, sign, split), but lacks common features like compression or text extraction, which are minor gaps.