Skip to main content
Glama

netcafe-docs

by com.ainetcafe

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
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
urlYesPublic URL of the statement PDF.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the annotations (read-only, idempotent, non-destructive), the description reveals valuable behavioral traits: the reconciliation cross-check formula, the output formats (JSON + CSV), and the exact failure feedback (difference and row where running balance breaks). This gives the agent a strong grasp of what to expect.

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?

Two sentences: the first states the primary action and output, the second details the reconciliation check and failure reporting, followed by a clear limitation. Every sentence contributes, and the key info is front-loaded.

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 one parameter, robust annotations, and an output schema present, the description covers the necessary context: the input, the processing logic, the return behavior, and an explicit limitation. There are no significant gaps for agent selection and invocation.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema already fully describes the only parameter (`url` with description). The description adds minimal extra meaning—only implying the URL must point to a text-layer PDF—but the baseline of 3 is appropriate given the high schema coverage.

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 uses a specific verb ('Turn... into') and names the exact resource: 'a bank statement or transaction PDF'. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like extract_tables by focusing on bank-specific reconciliation rather than generic table extraction.

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?

It implicitly tells when to use: for bank statements requiring a reconciled transaction table, and explicitly states the constraint 'Text-layer PDFs only (scanned images not yet supported)' as a when-not. However, it doesn't explicitly name alternatives for scanned PDFs or generic table extraction.

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

All netcafe-docs 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

A3.7/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Each tool targets a unique operation—conversions, extractions, translations, and utilities like resume checking or redaction—with no meaningful overlap. The few similar tools (e.g., convert_to_pdf vs. xlsx_to_pdf) are clearly distinguished by input type.

Naming Consistency3/5

Naming mixes conventions: verb_noun (extract_tables, redact_text), noun_to_noun (xlsx_to_pdf, pptx_to_pdf), and unusual forms like doc_translate_cn and what_can_you_do. While snake_case is consistent, the verb/noun pattern is not, making the set slightly less predictable.

Tool Count3/5

With 23 tools, the server sits at the heavy end of the acceptable range. Every tool has a distinct purpose, but the spread across PDF handling, research, audio, and accounting utilities feels more like a miscellaneous collection than a focused suite, which could overwhelm agents.

Completeness4/5

The server covers a broad spectrum of document-processing tasks—conversion, extraction, translation, redaction, and validation—with few dead ends. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no PDF merge/split, no OCR for all scanned PDFs, no explicit delete/update for resources), but core workflows are well supported.

Resources