AI NetCafé

Bank statement PDF → transactions + reconciliation check

extract_statement

Read-onlyIdempotent

Turn a bank statement or transaction PDF into a clean transaction table (JSON + CSV), then cross-check it: opening + credits - debits must equal the stated closing balance. If it does not balance you get the exact difference and which row the running balance first breaks at — so you know whether the table is safe to use for accounting. Text-layer PDFs only (scanned images not yet supported).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`url`	Yes	Public URL of the statement PDF.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

TDQS

A4.7/5.0

Behavior5/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint), the description reveals the reconciliation logic, exact difference reporting, first breaking row, and the text-layer-only constraint. This adds substantial behavioral context not already covered by annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single paragraph of three sentences, each carrying essential information: extraction, reconciliation check, and limitations. It is front-loaded with the core action and avoids redundancy. No irrelevant details.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With only one parameter and an output schema present, the description fully explains the tool's scope: input format, processing, validation, expected output (JSON+CSV, difference, break row), and known limitation (scanned images). It is complete for the tool's complexity.

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?

The schema only says 'Public URL of the statement PDF.' The description adds that the URL must point to a text-layer bank statement or transaction PDF, clarifying the content expectations. Since schema coverage is 100% and the description enriches the parameter meaning, a 4 is appropriate.

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 a specific verb ('Turn a bank statement or transaction PDF into a clean transaction table') and resource scope, distinguishing it from siblings like extract_tables (generic table extraction) and csv_to_qbo (CSV conversion). It also names the output formats (JSON + CSV) and the reconciliation check.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description gives clear context (for bank statement processing) and an explicit exclusion ('Text-layer PDFs only (scanned images not yet supported)'). It does not name an alternative tool or explicitly say when not to use it beyond the scanned-image limitation, so it falls short of a 5.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All AI NetCafé tools Inspect

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

A3.9/5.0

Disambiguation5/5

Every tool has a clearly distinct purpose with detailed descriptions that explicitly differentiate even close pairs like diff_tables vs reconcile_ledger and list_models vs model_costs. No two tools appear to do the same thing, and the what_can_you_do tool further resolves any confusion.

Naming Consistency3/5

The majority of tools follow a verb_noun snake_case pattern (build_app, fetch_page, list_tasks), but several notable deviations exist: ai_visibility, china_reachability, model_costs, json_yaml, pdf_to_markdown, what_can_you_do, recall, remember, and jwt_decode. This mixed convention, while still readable, is not fully consistent.

Tool Count3/5

With 34 tools, the count is high and exceeds the typical comfortable range for an MCP server. However, the server is a broad AI utility platform covering web, data, LLM, conversion, and scheduling tasks, and each tool appears to serve a distinct purpose with little redundancy, making the large but organized set borderline appropriate for its scope.

Completeness3/5

The tool surface covers a wide array of common workflows (search, fetch, table operations, PDF extraction, model comparisons, task scheduling, memory). However, check_job references deep_research, translate_pdf, and make_slides which are not present in the tool list, and there is no update tool for tasks/apps or a way to delete memories, leaving some user journeys incomplete.

Resources

Need Help?