Rotate pages of a PDF clockwise by 90, 180, or 270 degrees. Omit "pages" to rotate every page; otherwise pass 1-based page numbers. Returns base64.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| Yes | The PDF as a base64 string or https URL. | ||
| pages | No | Optional 1-based page numbers to rotate; omit for all pages. | |
| degrees | Yes | Clockwise rotation to add. |
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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the operation (rotate), degrees spec, and return format (base64), but does not clarify whether the rotation modifies the original file or creates a new one, nor does it mention side effects or permissions.
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 efficient sentences: first states purpose and degrees, second explains parameter usage. No extraneous information, front-loaded with the key action.
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?
For a simple 3-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description adequately covers all parameters and the output format. It lacks details on error cases or limitations like file size, but is reasonably complete for typical use.
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 minimal value beyond the schema—it repeats the omission behavior already in the pages parameter description and the degrees direction already in the schema. No new parameter-level insight.
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 uses a specific verb 'rotate' and identifies the resource 'pages of a PDF', clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like compress_pdf or merge_pdf. It is not a tautology.
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 provides clear parameter-level guidance ('omit pages to rotate every page; otherwise pass 1-based page numbers'), but does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives or mention any prerequisites.
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.
