Encrypt a PDF with a password (AES). The result requires the password to open. Returns base64.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| Yes | The PDF as a base64 string or https URL. | ||
| password | Yes | Password required to open the output PDF. |
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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that encryption uses AES, the result requires the password to open, and returns base64. It does not mention side effects like whether the original file is modified, but the behavior is sufficiently described for a simple encryption 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?
Two concise sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence immediately states the core purpose and algorithm. The structure is front-loaded and 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 no output schema, the description covers the return format (base64). Input parameters are fully described. The tool is simple, and the description provides all necessary context for an agent to select and invoke it correctly.
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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by clarifying that 'pdf' can be a base64 string or HTTPS URL, and states the return format (base64). This information is not in the schema, improving parameter understanding.
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 clearly states 'Encrypt a PDF with a password (AES).' It specifies the verb (encrypt), resource (PDF), and method (password/AES), and distinguishes from sibling tools like compress_pdf or merge_pdf which perform different operations.
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 implicitly tells when to use this tool: when you need to password-protect a PDF. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or provide alternatives (e.g., for removing passwords). The purpose is clear enough to avoid confusion with 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.
Each tool targets a distinct PDF operation: compression, page deletion, info retrieval, merging, protection, rotation, and splitting. There is no overlap or ambiguity between tool purposes.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case (e.g., compress_pdf, delete_pages), making it easy to predict functionality from the name.
With 7 tools covering essential PDF manipulations, the count is well-scoped for the domain. Each tool serves a clear purpose without unnecessary redundancy.
The set covers core PDF operations (CRUD for pages, compression, protection, info). Minor gaps exist (e.g., no watermarking or annotation), but the surface is sufficient for typical workflows.
