split_pdfSplit a PDF into multiple PDFs — one per page by default, or by page ranges like '1-3;4-6'. Returns a file_id + URL per part.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| Yes | A file_id from a prior tool result, or a base64-encoded PDF. | ||
| ranges | No | e.g. '1-3;4-6'. Omit to split every page. |
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?
Discloses the return format ('Returns a file_id + URL per part'), which is a useful behavioral trait. However, with zero annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does not disclose whether the original PDF is modified, error behavior for invalid ranges, or any side effects. Partial disclosure only.
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?
Two tight sentences with the core purpose front-loaded. Every sentence earns its place: the first states the action and default, the second gives the alternative syntax and return format. No fluff or redundancy.
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?
The tool is moderately complex (splitting with range syntax) and has neither annotations nor an output schema, so the description must carry more weight. It covers the core action, default behavior, range syntax, and return format, but omits differentiation from the similar select_pages sibling and does not address edge cases like invalid or overlapping ranges. Adequate but with clear gaps.
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% for both parameters (pdf and ranges), so the baseline is 3. The description largely repeats what the schema already states about ranges ('like 1-3;4-6' and 'Omit to split every page') and adds no new semantic detail such as 1-indexing, overlapping-range handling, or expected output count per range segment.
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?
States a specific verb (Split), resource (PDF), and behavior (multiple PDFs, per-page default or ranges). However, it does not distinguish split_pdf from the sibling tool select_pages, which also operates on page ranges and could be confused with this tool.
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?
Explains how to invoke the tool ('one per page by default, or by page ranges like 1-3;4-6'), but gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as select_pages, merge_pdfs, or extract_pdf_text. No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance exists.
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.
Most tools have clearly distinct purposes, such as extracting PDF text versus filling forms or rendering URLs to PDF versus screenshots. The only mild overlap is read_url and scrape_page, both fetching a URL, but their outputs are explicitly differentiated as clean Markdown versus raw HTML with metadata.
Names mostly follow a verb_noun pattern like extract_pdf_text, fill_pdf_form, and rotate_pdf. A few conversion tools use 'to' constructions (images_to_pdf, markdown_to_pdf, url_to_pdf) and some pluralize objects (merge_pdfs, select_pages), creating minor inconsistency but no real confusion.
With 15 tools, the set is at the upper edge of the ideal range and every tool serves a distinct, useful function within the PDF and URL processing domain. The count feels justified rather than excessive.
The PDF tooling covers creation from images and Markdown, text extraction, form filling and reading, merging, splitting, rotating, selecting pages, and watermarking. URL handling covers reading as Markdown, scraping raw HTML/metadata, generating PDFs, and taking screenshots, providing well-rounded coverage for the stated domain.