Skip to main content
Glama

netcafe-docs

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

A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), the description adds valuable behavioral traits: 'Rows the model was unsure about are flagged rather than guessed' and the limitation 'Text-layer PDFs only.' This gives insight into output quality and compatibility without contradicting 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 three sentences, front-loaded with the core function, followed by the fields explanation, then constraints and behavioral note. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy or 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?

For a tool with two parameters and an existing output schema, the description covers purpose, parameter usage, limitations, and uncertainty handling. It is complete enough for an agent to invoke the tool correctly without additional context.

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 input schema already covers both parameters with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds some context for the fields parameter by explaining its purpose (aligning differently-named headers), but does not introduce new syntax or format details beyond the schema.

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 the tool extracts tables from a PDF into structured rows (JSON + CSV), specifying the resource (PDF) and output format. It distinguishes from siblings like pdf_to_markdown or extract_statement by emphasizing structured tabular data and the option to force a fixed column set.

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 provides clear context on when to use the tool, especially for aligning documents with inconsistent headers by passing fields. It also sets a constraint with 'Text-layer PDFs only,' implying it should not be used for scanned/image PDFs, but it does not explicitly name alternative tools.

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