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) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Discloses local browser processing (security trait) and user interaction on thumbnails, but lacks info on file size limits, error handling, or return format. With no annotations, description carries burden but is incomplete.
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?
Two English sentences front-load core purpose and usage, followed by Polish translation. The translation is redundant for most agents, slightly increasing length but not harming clarity.
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?
Covers main functionality and local processing, but lacks details on output (e.g., interactive download) and error states. No output schema, so description should elaborate on result, which it does not fully.
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?
Description adds context beyond schema: explains ranges are for pre-selection and that user can adjust, complementing the schema's example. Both parameters are covered at 100% schema coverage, so credit for extra usage context.
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?
Description uses specific verb 'split' and resource 'PDF', and distinguishes from sibling tools like merge_pdfs and sign_pdf by focusing on extraction of pages.
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 for splitting PDFs with optional pre-selection via ranges, but no explicit when-not-to-use or comparison to alternatives. The mention of user adjustment hints at interactive use but lacks clear boundaries.
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.