Skip to main content
Glama

ocr_table_url

OCR table from image URL

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
urlYesImage URL with table

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed3 schema fields changed
    • removedInput schema / properties / args
      Removed value: -{
      -  "description": "Tool arguments",
      -  "properties": {
      -    "text": {
      -      "description": "Primary input text",
      -      "type": "string"
      -    }
      -  },
      -  "type": "object"
      -}
    • addedInput schema / properties / url
      Added value: +{
      +  "description": "Image URL with table",
      +  "type": "string"
      +}
    • changedInput schema / required
      Previous value: -[]New value: +[
      +  "url"
      +]
  2. Added

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Behavior2/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only states the operation. It omits details about output format, potential errors, whether the image is downloaded, or any rate limits or side effects.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no extraneous words. For a one-parameter tool, this is appropriately concise.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

There is no output schema, so the description should explain return values, but it does not. It also lacks usage context and alternative references, making it incomplete for a tool that ostensibly returns extracted table data.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%; the url parameter is already documented as 'Image URL with table'. The tool description adds no extra semantic detail beyond repeating the source. Baseline 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description 'OCR table from image URL' uses a specific verb (OCR) and resource (table) plus source (image URL), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like ocr_image, ocr_table, and ocr_url. It precisely communicates the tool's scope.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

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. It does not mention related tools like ocr_table, ocr_url, or table_extract, nor any exclusions or prerequisites.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.