Skip to main content
Glama

ai-netcafe

by com.ainetcafe

PDF tables → structured rows (with schema alignment)

extract_tables
Read-onlyIdempotent

Extract tables from a PDF into structured rows (JSON + CSV). Pass fields to force a fixed set of columns — that aligns a pile of documents that each name their headers differently into one consistent table. Rows the model was unsure about are flagged rather than guessed. Text-layer PDFs only.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
urlYesPublic URL of the PDF.
fieldsNoOptional comma-separated target columns, e.g. "invoice_no,supplier,date,amount". Omit to infer from the header.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Discloses non-obvious behaviors: uncertain rows are flagged rather than guessed, and only text-layer PDFs are supported. Annotations already cover read-only/idempotent/non-destructive, so this description adds substantial value beyond them.

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?

Four succinct sentences, each carrying unique information: output format, schema alignment usage, uncertainty handling, and text-layer limitation. No wasted words.

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 rich annotations, complete schema, and output schema present, the description covers all essential aspects: purpose, key parameters, a critical limitation, and behavioral nuances. Nothing significant is missing for a tool of this 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so parameters are documented. Description adds contextual meaning to 'fields' by explaining the alignment use case, going beyond the schema's mechanical description.

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 'Extract tables from a PDF into structured rows (JSON + CSV)', giving a specific verb and resource with output format. It distinguishes from sibling PDF tools by focusing on table extraction and schema alignment.

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?

Provides clear context: use for PDF tables needing consistent schema alignment, and pass 'fields' to force fixed columns. States text-layer requirement, but does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions.

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

All ai-netcafe 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

A3.6/5.0
Disambiguation3/5

Many tools are clearly distinct, but there are several overlapping groups: PDF extraction (extract_invoices, extract_statement, extract_tables, pdf_to_markdown), table comparison (diff_tables vs reconcile_ledger), and model pricing (list_models vs model_costs). Descriptions help clarify boundaries, but an agent could misselect without careful reading.

Naming Consistency3/5

All names use lowercase snake_case, but the verb-noun pattern is inconsistent. Most tools are verb-first (build_app, clean_table, fetch_page), but several are noun-first (jwt_decode, regex_test, web_search), noun-only (ai_visibility, model_costs), bare verbs (recall, remember), or a full phrase (what_can_you_do). This mixed convention is still readable but not predictable.

Tool Count2/5

With 34 tools, this server exceeds the 25-tool threshold for 'too many'. While the breadth covers many utility domains, the count is heavy and some tools could be consolidated or removed. A more focused set would reduce cognitive load and misselection risk.

Completeness3/5

The utility set covers web, PDF, CSV, model, task, and dev tooling well, but there are notable gaps in resource lifecycles. Apps have build/list/get but no update/delete, and memories support remember/recall but no forget. These missing operations could create dead ends for agents.

Resources