Extracts plain text preview from public PDF URLs ($0.005 USDC)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| pdfUrl | Yes | Public HTTPS URL of the target PDF document |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| pages | No | Number of pages parsed | |
| success | Yes | Parsing status | |
| textPreview | Yes | Extracted plain text body |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / pdfUrl / descriptionAdded value: +"Public HTTPS URL of the target PDF document"Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "properties": {
+ "pages": {
+ "description": "Number of pages parsed",
+ "type": "integer"
+ },
+ "success": {
+ "description": "Parsing status",
+ "type": "boolean"
+ },
+ "textPreview": {
+ "description": "Extracted plain text body",
+ "type": "string"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "success",
+ "textPreview"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and open-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: the call costs $0.005 USDC and returns a 'preview' (i.e., truncated) rather than full text, which an agent must know before invoking.
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?
One compact sentence that front-loads the action, output type, input constraint, and cost. No filler to trim.
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?
Output schema exists so return values need not be described, and the cost and preview-scope caveats are disclosed. Minor gaps remain around size/page limits and failure modes for non-public or malformed URLs, but the essential picture is 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?
Schema description coverage is 100% for the single pdfUrl parameter, so the schema already carries the semantics. The description reinforces the 'public' constraint but adds no format or syntax detail beyond the schema; 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?
States a specific verb (Extracts) and resource (plain text preview from public PDF URLs), which cleanly separates it from generic siblings like web_scraper and browser_scraper. It does not explicitly name an alternative, so it stops short of a 5.
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 phrase 'public PDF URLs' implicitly scopes usage to remote, publicly reachable PDFs, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no named alternative among the many scraping/extraction siblings.
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.