watermark_pdfStamp a diagonal grey text watermark across every page of a PDF.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| Yes | A file_id from a prior tool result, or a base64-encoded PDF. | ||
| text | Yes | The watermark text. |
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?
With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden of explaining side effects. It describes the stamping action but does not state whether the operation returns a new PDF, modifies the input, or affects the original file.
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 description is a single clear sentence with no unnecessary words. It directly conveys the core action and target.
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 description is adequate for a simple PDF operation, but it omits any mention of the output or return behavior. Since no output schema is provided, a brief note about the result would make it more complete.
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?
Both parameters are covered by schema descriptions: pdf and text. The description adds no extra semantic detail beyond the schema, but the schema itself is already sufficient for basic understanding.
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 uses the specific verb 'Stamp' and clearly identifies the resource and scope: a diagonal grey text watermark across every page of a PDF. This makes the tool's purpose immediately clear and distinguishable from sibling PDF tools.
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?
The description states what the tool does but gives no explicit guidance about when to use it versus alternatives. It does not mention when watermarking is appropriate or when another PDF tool would be preferred.
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.