Compress PDF file by packing object streams and optimizing elements.
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": {
"fileUrl": "<fileUrl>"
},
"name": "compress_pdf"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| fileUrl | Yes | Public URL of the PDF file |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It hints at the compression mechanism, but omits whether compression is lossy, what happens to the source file, where the compressed artifact is written, and whether any permissions or size limits apply — all material for a mutation tool.
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?
A single tight sentence that front-loads the verb and resource with no wasted words. It is concise but arguably under-specified rather than over-long.
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?
No output schema and no annotations means the description must explain the result; it does not say what the tool returns (e.g., a URL to the compressed file) or how the caller retrieves it. For a mutation tool with an undeclared return value, this is a meaningful gap.
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?
There is only one parameter (fileUrl) and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents it fully. The description adds no syntax, format, or constraint detail beyond what the schema provides, making the baseline 3 appropriate.
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 (compress) and resource (PDF), plus the mechanism (packing object streams and optimizing elements). It is clearly distinguishable from compress_audio/compress_image/compress_video by the resource name, though it doesn't articulate scope or any non-obvious constraints.
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?
No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no alternatives named. The sibling list makes the audio/image/video distinction inferable from the resource name, but the description itself offers nothing about when this tool is the right pick.
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.