xlsx to pdf
xlsx_to_pdfExcel .xlsx (by URL) → PDF.
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | No |
netcafe-docs
TDQS
C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not mention whether the operation is synchronous or asynchronous (despite the sibling check_job), any side effects, prerequisites, or failure modes. The only detail is the mapping from xlsx to PDF, which is insufficient.
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, concise arrow-notation sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded and immediately conveys the input/output transformation, earning a perfect score for efficiency.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the absence of annotations, output schema, and detailed parameter info, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain what the tool returns, how long it might take, whether it supports asynchronous processing (as hinted by sibling check_job), or any constraints. For a tool that likely involves file conversion and potential URL access, this is inadequate.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has one parameter 'url' with no description, and schema coverage is 0%. The description mentions 'by URL' which clarifies the input is a URL, but it does not describe the expected format, whether other parameters are allowed (additionalProperties is true), or any optional settings. This adds only minimal meaning 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 'Excel .xlsx (by URL) → PDF.' uses a specific verb (conversion) and resource (xlsx by URL) to clearly state the tool's function. It distinguishes from sibling tools like pptx_to_pdf and convert_to_pdf by naming the exact input and output formats.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as convert_to_pdf, which might also handle xlsx. The description implies a specific use case but does not mention exclusions or contexts, leaving the agent to guess.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Try in Browser
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.