Delete Pages — Remove specific pages from a PDF. [category: pdf]
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| file | Yes | The PDF to edit. Password-protected input is rejected 400 — run pdf_unlock first. | |
| pages | Yes | Pages to delete e.g. '1,3,5-7' |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description only restates that pages are removed; it does not disclose whether the original file is modified or a new PDF is returned, nor any non-obvious side effects. Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the description adds little beyond what annotations already imply.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The substantive sentence is short and front-loaded, clearly naming the action and target. The repeated 'Delete Pages' prefix and category tag add minimal value, so it is not a perfect 5.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a file-mutating tool with no output schema and many PDF siblings, this description leaves out return behavior, whether the operation is reversible, and how to choose it over similar tools. It is adequate for invocation once selected but incomplete for distinguishing and predicting the result.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% and parameter descriptions are informative, especially the 400 rejection for password-protected input. The main description adds no parameter-level meaning, so the baseline 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the specific verb 'Remove' and resource 'pages from a PDF', so an agent immediately knows what the tool does. It doesn't explicitly contrast with pdf_extract_pages or pdf_split, but the semantics are clear.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is given on when to choose this over pdf_extract_pages, pdf_split, or pdf_reorder, and there are no exclusions or prerequisites. The only useful routing detail (password-protected inputs require pdf_unlock first) lives in the schema's file parameter, not the description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Multiple tool pairs are near-identical: octopus_mkdir/octopus_make_folder and octopus_move/octopus_move_file are literal duplicates, analyze_hash/generate_hash both compute hashes, convert_word_to_pdf overlaps convert_document, and photo_compress/photo_compress_to_size plus pdf_thumbnails/pdf_to_images have fuzzy boundaries. The descriptions are detailed and cross-reference each other helpfully, but at 144 tools an agent will regularly misselect.
The dominant {category}_{verb}_{object} snake_case pattern (pdf_*, photo_*, convert_*, analyze_*, media_*) is largely consistent and predictable. However, outliers like chatwithyourpdf and describe_image break the category-prefix convention, and the octopus namespace mixes bare verbs (read, write, mkdir) with verb_noun forms (make_folder, move_file, search_meta) inconsistently.
144 tools is an extreme count for any MCP server. The broad scope (PDF, photo, video, audio, conversion, analysis, generation, file storage, web, e-sign) justifies some volume, but the count is inflated by batch and inspect variants (pdf_to_excel + batch + inspect), duplicate tools, and overlapping converters. An agent faces an overwhelming selection surface.
Per-domain coverage is remarkably deep: PDF spans merge/split/compress/protect/unlock/metadata/OCR/watermark and bidirectional conversion; photo covers editing, format conversion, face handling, OCR, and collage; file storage has full CRUD plus search. Minor gaps exist (no audio transcription, no video metadata editing, no deletion of PDF pages is actually covered via pdf_delete_pages) but the surface has no dead ends for its declared domains.
