PDFops

Set PDF metadata

pdf_set_metadata

Idempotent

Write document info fields (title, author, subject, creator, keywords) into a PDF. Give at least one; an empty string sets an empty value. Unicode is fine. Keywords may be a list or a comma-separated string. The output is saved unencrypted. Use pdf_metadata to read the current values. Returns the result inline as an application/pdf resource; the source is never modified.

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": {
      "pdf_path": "<pdf_path>"
    },
    "name": "pdf_set_metadata"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`title`	No
`author`	No
`creator`	No
`subject`	No
`keywords`	No	Comma-separated string or list of keywords
`password`	No	Password to open the input, only needed for a user-password PDF (owner-locked files with an empty user password open without it).
`pdf_path`	Yes	PDF source: an https:// URL or a data:application/pdf;base64,… URI (this hosted server cannot read local file paths).

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`bytes`	Yes	Size of the produced PDF in bytes
`resource_uri`	No	pdfops:// uri of the inline application/pdf resource

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

AddedNov 7, 2026

TDQS

A4.7/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations declare idempotent=true and destructive=false, and the description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior on top: the output is saved *unencrypted* (protection is dropped in the result), the source file is never modified, and the response comes back inline as an application/pdf resource. The unencrypted-output disclosure is exactly the kind of side effect an agent cannot infer from any structured field.

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?

Five short sentences, front-loaded with the action, then constraints, then the read alternative, then the return/side-effect note. No restatement of the title and no filler; every sentence carries an actionable fact.

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

Completeness5/5

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

For a 7-parameter mutation tool this is complete: it covers input constraints, the empty-string edge case, encryption side effects, source immutability, and the read-sibling routing. An output schema exists, yet the description still clarifies the inline resource return, which is a bonus rather than padding.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is only 43%, so compensation is needed, and the description supplies it: at least one info field required, an empty string sets an empty value, Unicode is accepted, and keywords may be a list or comma-separated string. The password parameter's semantics are left entirely to the schema's own description, and the 1000-char limits are not mentioned, so it stops short of full coverage.

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

Purpose5/5

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

States a specific verb and resource ('Write document info fields... into a PDF') and enumerates the exact fields it touches (title, author, subject, creator, keywords). It also names the read counterpart pdf_metadata, so an agent can separate this from its sibling without inspecting either schema.

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?

"Give at least one" establishes a real usage constraint not present in the schema (only pdf_path is required), and "Use pdf_metadata to read the current values" routes the agent to the correct alternative for the read case. It lacks an explicit 'do not use this for rotation/protection/watermarking' exclusion, but the field list implicitly bounds it.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All PDFops tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?