JustFill PDF Form Automation

Save layout as template

save_template

Persist the reviewed field layout: a future open_pdf of this exact file returns these fields with confidence 1.0 and no ML pass.

Field names (set with update_fields name=..., e.g. 'age_score',
'total_abcd2') are stored in the template, so later sessions map values
by meaning instead of by coordinates. False positives present at save
time are stored too, so remove them first with `remove_fields` or
`prune_fields`. For ML-detected layouts, every page with fields must be
reviewed via `render_preview` before saving.

When to use:
- Call `save_template` after filling (only when the user confirms) to persist
  in-workspace field edits (`add_field`, `update_field`, `remove_field`) across
  future sessions for the same blank PDF.
- Use `list_templates` to view existing saved templates on the account.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`name`	Yes	Human-readable display name for the saved template (e.g. `'IRS Form W-9'`, `'Vendor Onboarding Form'`).
`workspace_id`	Yes	Active workspace ID returned by `open_pdf` (`summary.workspace_id`) whose reviewed field layout should be saved.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed2 schema fields changedOct 24, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / name / description

Added value: +"Human-readable display name for the saved template (e.g. `'IRS Form W-9'`, `'Vendor Onboarding Form'`)."

addedInput schema / properties / workspace_id / description

Added value: +"Active workspace ID returned by `open_pdf` (`summary.workspace_id`) whose reviewed field layout should be saved."

First observedOct 23, 2026

TDQS

A4.6/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations only declare a safe non-destructive write; the description adds the real behavioral payload: templates capture field names so later sessions map by meaning rather than coordinates, false positives present at save time get baked in, and unreviewed pages are a documented precondition. It also discloses the downstream consequence (confidence 1.0, no ML pass), which is exactly the context annotations cannot convey.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

Front-loaded with the effect and its consequence, then a clearly separated 'When to use' list. Slightly long and heavy on backticked identifiers, but every sentence carries operational information rather than filler.

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

Completeness5/5

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

For a two-parameter persistence tool with an output schema already defined, the description covers the effect, the preconditions, the ordering against sibling mutation tools, and the alternative for inspection. Nothing needed to call it correctly is missing.

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% and both parameters are well documented in-schema, including the pointer to open_pdf's summary.workspace_id. The description's use of 'name=...' refers to field names set via update_fields rather than the template `name` parameter, so it adds no extra semantics about the two arguments themselves. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 opening sentence states a specific verb and resource ('Persist the reviewed field layout') and immediately defines the observable effect: a future open_pdf of the exact file returns these fields with confidence 1.0 and no ML pass. That distinguishes it cleanly from siblings like update_fields (in-session edit) and list_templates (read-only listing).

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

An explicit 'When to use' block states the trigger (after filling, only when the user confirms), the class of edits persisted (add_field, update_field, remove_field), and names the alternative for viewing saved templates (list_templates). It also gives ordering prerequisites: remove false positives with remove_fields/prune_fields first, and review every page via render_preview for ML-detected layouts.

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

All JustFill PDF Form Automation tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.