Extract Archive — Extract files from ZIP, RAR, 7z, TAR, GZ archives. Runs in the browser. Covered by signup welcome credits and by the Day Pass (24-hour unlimited on this workspace group). All three credit-based workspaces unlock with the same one-time credit pack — there is no per-workspace subscription. See mioffice.ai/pricing for current plans.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'Runs in the browser' and credit coverage, but omits critical operational details such as input expectations (e.g., file upload via context), security considerations, size limits, or output/return behavior. This leaves significant gaps for a tool with zero parameters.
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 purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, which is good. However, two of three sentences are dedicated to pricing and credit details ('Covered by signup welcome credits...'), which are irrelevant to tool invocation and add noise. The description could be shortened to focus on the tool's function.
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 input parameters, output schema, and annotations, the description should explain how the agent is expected to provide the archive file (e.g., via file upload context) and what the output will be. It only states the general extraction capability and browser execution, leaving major operational context missing. This is insufficient for reliable tool invocation.
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?
The input schema has zero parameters, so there is nothing to document. The baseline for 0 parameters is 4, and the description does not need to add parameter semantics. It also avoids introducing confusion about nonexistent parameters.
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 'Extract files from ZIP, RAR, 7z, TAR, GZ archives' using a specific verb and resource. However, the tool name 'mio_pdf_unzip' suggests a PDF-specific purpose, while the description covers general archive extraction, causing slight ambiguity. It distinguishes from sibling tools by listing supported archive formats.
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 indicates usage for extracting archive files, but it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like mio_pdf_zip. No exclusions or alternative tool references are provided, leaving the agent to infer context from the tool name and 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.
Multiple tools have overlapping purposes, such as mio_ai_remove_background and mio_ai_remove_background_pro, mio_ai_video_subtitler and mio_video_auto_captions, and mio_ai_enhancer tools targeting similar media. Agents would struggle to pick the correct tool when several appear to do nearly the same thing.
Naming conventions are mixed: most tools use a mio_ prefix with category, but some use action-based names (mio_image_compress), others use format-pair names (mio_image_avif_to_jpg), and a few use a different prefix (mioffice_list_tools, mioffice_pricing_info). The lack of a uniform pattern makes the tool set harder to navigate.
With 134 tools, the server is massively over-scoped. Even for a broad workspace suite, this count exceeds practical limits and creates significant selection overhead for agents. The number is more appropriate for a full product catalog than an MCP tool surface.
The tool set covers a wide range of PDF, image, audio, video, scanner, and AI operations, so most common tasks are represented. However, there are notable gaps for a 'workspace studio,' such as no document creation or spreadsheet editing tools, and the redundancy between overlapping AI tools suggests the surface is not thoughtfully curated.
