Skip to main content
Glama

Check PDF/UA accessibility

pdf_check_accessibility
Read-onlyIdempotent

Check a PDF for PDF/UA accessibility compliance (veraPDF engine) and return the findings report. Use this when the user asks about PDF accessibility, screen-reader compatibility, or WCAG/PDF/UA issues.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "file": "<file>"
    },
    "name": "pdf_check_accessibility"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
fileYesBase64-encoded file bytes (no data: URL prefix).
flavourNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world, so safety is covered. The description adds the engine (veraPDF) and that it returns a findings report, but says nothing about runtime cost, file-size limits, or what a report contains for a 11MB-capped upload.

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 tight sentences; the action and its output are front-loaded before the usage trigger. No filler.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

No output schema and no annotations gap for safety, so the description's note that it returns the findings report is useful. However the undocumented 'flavour' parameter and the absence of any results-format or limit detail leave it only adequate for a checker tool.

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?

Schema coverage is 50%: 'file' is documented (base64 bytes), but 'flavour' has no description anywhere. The description does not mention the flavour parameter at all, so an agent gets no guidance on selecting the PDF/UA variant or its allowed values.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ('Check a PDF for PDF/UA accessibility compliance') plus the underlying engine (veraPDF), which is more than a restatement of the name. It doesn't explicitly differentiate itself from the closest sibling, pdf_validate_pdfa, but PDF/UA vs PDF/A is a meaningful distinction an agent can infer.

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 an explicit when-to-use trigger ('when the user asks about PDF accessibility, screen-reader compatibility, or WCAG/PDF/UA issues'). No exclusions or alternative-tool routing are given, notably against pdf_validate_pdfa for standards-compliance checks.

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.

Resources