pdf-splitSplit PDFs by page range or into individual pages.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| Yes | Base64-encoded PDF file | ||
| splitMode | No | Split mode: each=per page, range=specific pages, even-odd=split by parity | each |
| pageRanges | No | Page ranges for range mode (e.g. "1-3, 5, 7-10"). 1-indexed. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Input schema / $schemaAdded value: +"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"Input schema / properties / pageRangesAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Page ranges for range mode (e.g. \"1-3, 5, 7-10\"). 1-indexed.",
+ "type": "string"
+}Input schema / properties / pdfAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Base64-encoded PDF file",
+ "type": "string"
+}Input schema / properties / splitModeAdded value: +{
+ "default": "each",
+ "description": "Split mode: each=per page, range=specific pages, even-odd=split by parity",
+ "enum": [
+ "each",
+ "range",
+ "even-odd"
+ ],
+ "type": "string"
+}Input schema / requiredAdded value: +[
+ "pdf"
+]Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must carry the burden of explaining behavior. It only mentions split modes and does not disclose output format, side effects, or requirements, leaving significant gaps.
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?
The description is a single sentence with no wasted words, front-loading the core purpose efficiently.
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 lack of output schema and the complexity of split modes, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (e.g., multiple files) or how it relates to overlapping sibling tools.
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%, with each parameter described in the schema. The description adds minimal value beyond restating the split modes, so the baseline of 3 is 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?
The description clearly states the tool splits PDFs by page range or into individual pages, with a specific verb and resource. However, it doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like pdf-extract-pages, so it's not fully differentiated.
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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like pdf-extract-pages or pdf-remove-pages. The description simply states the action without context or exclusions.
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.
Multiple tools have overlapping purposes, such as bg-remover, bg-remover-pro, pro-matting, and takumi all performing background removal, and upscaler/upscaler-pro being redundant. With 202 tools, an agent may easily select the wrong one despite detailed descriptions.
Most tools use a consistent kebab-case format with descriptive names like pdf-compress, image-resizer, and tax-return-calc. Exceptions like 'takumi', 'pro-matting', and '-pro' suffixes (bg-remover-pro, upscaler-pro) are minor deviations relative to the total.
202 tools is an extreme mismatch for an MCP server, far exceeding the typical 3-15 well-scoped range. The sheer volume makes it unwieldy for an agent to efficiently navigate and select the right tool.
The tool set provides extensive coverage across many domains, including PDF operations (20+ tools), image editing, financial calculations, e-commerce fee estimation, and YouTube utilities. Minor gaps exist in cross-tool integration, but the breadth is highly comprehensive for the apparent purpose.