delete_pagesFree. Remove the pages you name from a PDF and keep the rest in order. Remove the pages named in pages (1-based, like 1-2,17) from artifact_id; every other page stays in order. Returns the new artifact_id and a download_url (a link that works for about an hour).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| pages | Yes | ||
| artifact_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / examplesAdded value: +[
+ {
+ "artifact_id": "99999999-aaaa-bbbb-cccc-dddddddddddd",
+ "pages": "2"
+ }
+]Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With annotations covering the mutability profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false), the description still adds real value: the operation produces a new artifact rather than altering the original, ordering is preserved, and the returned download_url expires in about an hour. It does not restate the safety hints, so there is no contradiction.
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?
Three tight sentences with zero redundancy; the cost note is front-loaded and the operational detail follows in priority order. Every sentence carries information an agent needs.
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 two-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers the operation, the indexing convention, the ordering guarantee, and even the return values despite the output schema existing. Nothing needed to invoke it correctly is missing.
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 0% (both params have bare titles), so the description must carry the load, and it does for 'pages' by giving both format and indexing convention ('1-based, like 1-2,17'). 'artifact_id' is only contextualized as the source document, without format details, which keeps this below a 5.
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?
States a specific verb and resource ('Remove the pages you name from a PDF') plus the scope constraint ('keep the rest in order'), which cleanly separates it from siblings like extract_pages and reorder_pages. An agent can pick it without opening the schema.
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 behavior implies when to use it (you want pages gone, not extracted or reordered), and 'Free' signals cost-relevant context. However, it never explicitly names an alternative operation or a condition for choosing it over extract_pages/reorder_pages, leaving routing to inference.
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.