Extract specific pages/ranges from a PDF.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| pages | Yes | Pages/ranges to extract, e.g. '1,3,5-7' or '1-5'. | |
| source_url | No | Public URL of the PDF. | |
| file_base64 | No | Base64-encoded PDF. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations provide idempotentHint and openWorldHint, but the description adds no behavioral context beyond that—e.g., no mention of output format or side effects. It does not contradict annotations.
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, concise sentence with no wasted words. The front-loaded structure is efficient.
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 the simple tool with 3 parameters and the presence of an output schema, the description is largely complete. However, it could note that source_url or file_base64 must be provided, but the schema indicates only pages is required, so it is acceptable.
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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema's parameter descriptions.
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 'Extract specific pages/ranges from a PDF' clearly states the verb (extract) and resource (pages from a PDF), and distinguishes it from sibling tools like compress_pdf, merge_pdfs, and rotate_pdf.
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 description implies usage for extracting pages but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as extract_pdf_text or split_pdf (no explicit when-not or alternative references).
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 has a clearly distinct purpose, covering different file operations (compress, convert, extract, merge, split, etc.) and billing management. No two tools overlap in functionality.
Most tool names follow a verb_noun pattern (compress_image, protect_pdf), but a few deviate (images_to_pdf, list_supported_conversions) causing minor inconsistency. The pattern is largely predictable.
17 tools is slightly above the typical well-scoped range, but still reasonable given the breadth of file manipulation and billing operations. Each tool serves a distinct need.
The file conversion and PDF manipulation operations are well-covered (compress, convert, extract, merge, split, protect, etc.). The billing tools are complete for subscription and credit management. Minor gaps exist, such as batch operations or image format conversions.