Stellt einem PDF ein DIN-5008-Adressblatt voran (für den Postversand). recipient = {name,street,zip,city,country}.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| filename | No | Dateiname (optional). | |
| pdfBase64 | Yes | Das PDF (base64). | |
| recipient | Yes | ||
| senderLine | No | Einzeilige Rücksendeangabe über dem Adressblock (optional). |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, and the description only states the operation. It does not disclose what the tool returns, whether the input PDF is modified, or any limitations. For a transformation tool, this is a substantial gap.
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 short and to the point, with the main purpose in the first sentence and the recipient structure in the second. No redundant or misleading content.
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?
With no output schema and no annotations, the description does not explain what the tool returns or address edge cases such as handling encrypted PDFs or existing cover pages. The moderate complexity (nested object, base64 input) demands more context.
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?
The schema already provides descriptions for all parameters (75% coverage), and the description only lists the recipient fields without adding extra meaning or constraints. It does not clarify any parameter relationships beyond what the schema conveys.
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 clearly states the action ('Stellt einem PDF ein DIN-5008-Adressblatt voran') and the specific use case (Postversand). It distinguishes this tool from siblings by focusing on postal mail and the DIN-5008 standard.
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 context 'für den Postversand' makes the intended use obvious, but there is no explicit mention of when not to use it or which alternative tools to prefer (e.g., fax_* or envelope_create). The guidance is clear but not exhaustive.
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.
Every tool targets a distinct action and resource: fax, brief, envelope, template, account, etc. There is no noticeable overlap; even fill_pdf and fill_template are clearly differentiated by type of PDF.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with underscores (e.g., account_balance, fax_confirm, search_templates). No mixing of conventions or irregular styles.
With 33 tools, the server covers multiple subdomains (PDF, fax, postal, signatures, templates). This is on the higher side but still reasonable for a comprehensive document processing server. However, it could benefit from consolidation.
The tool surface covers core document workflows: fill, sign, scan, fax, mail, template exploration, and account management. Minor gaps exist (e.g., PDF merging or splitting), but most user journeys are supported.
