compress-pdf-fileCompress a PDF file to reduce its file size. Always runs asynchronously and returns a job id; poll "check-job-status" or provide "webhook_url" to receive a callback.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| file | Yes | Publicly reachable URL of the PDF file to compress. | |
| webhook_url | No | Callback URL invoked when the async job finishes. Omit and poll "check-job-status" instead if no callback endpoint is available. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Description discloses that compression runs asynchronously and returns a job id, which is beyond the annotations (only destructiveHint: false). No contradiction. Useful for agent to understand side effects.
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?
Two sentences, no filler. Purpose is front-loaded, and async details follow immediately. Efficient and clear.
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?
Given 2 params, no output schema, and async flow, the description adequately covers what the tool does and how to handle results. Could mention the job status response format, but not required.
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 coverage is 100%, but description adds context: for file, it says 'publicly reachable URL' (slightly redundant); for webhook_url, it clarifies optionality and alternative polling. Adds value beyond schema.
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?
Description clearly states 'Compress a PDF file to reduce its file size.' It identifies the specific verb and resource, and distinguishes from sibling tools like split, merge, or convert.
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?
Explains async behavior and how to handle it: poll 'check-job-status' or use 'webhook_url'. Provides clear guidance on usage, though lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternatives for simple compression.
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.
Each tool targets a distinct operation (document management, PDF manipulation, automation, analytics, etc.) with clear boundaries, making it easy for an agent to select the correct one.
All tool names follow a strict lowercase-with-hyphens pattern and use consistent verb-noun phrasing (e.g., 'create-document', 'list-documents', 'add-pdf-security'), ensuring predictability.
At 45 tools, the server far exceeds the recommended 3-15 range for a well-scoped set. While the coverage is comprehensive, the high number may overwhelm agents and suggests insufficient consolidation.
The tool surface covers the full lifecycle of documents and PDFs—creation, retrieval, update, deletion, archiving, security, OCR, splitting, merging, automation, analytics, and more—with no obvious gaps.