Check one PDF: digital signature status, whether content was added after signing, and metadata observations (creation dates, producing software, edit history). Returns findings JSON and a plain-language report. The result classifies evidence; it never determines fraud, authenticity, or legal validity.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| filename | No | Original filename, for the report header. | |
| file_base64 | Yes | File content, base64-encoded. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It transparently states the return format (findings JSON and plain-language report) and explicitly clarifies that the tool classifies evidence but never determines fraud, authenticity, or legal validity, which sets appropriate expectations.
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 three focused sentences, leading with the primary action and resource, then the specific checks, then the output and limitations. It is concise, well-structured, and contains no filler or redundancy.
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?
The description adequately covers the tool's behavior, inputs scope, output type, and limitations despite the absence of an output schema. It explains what findings are returned and what the tool does not do, which is sufficient for a single-PDF verification tool. Minor additional context about error handling or file size limits could improve completeness, but it is not essential.
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 already provides 100% coverage for both parameters, so the description adds little beyond the schema. The filename parameter's purpose is defined in the schema as 'for the report header,' and the description does not add extra semantic detail beyond what is already documented.
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 checks a single PDF for digital signature status, post-signing content additions, and metadata observations. It distinctly differentiates from sibling tools like compare_pdfs by emphasizing 'one PDF' and specific verification tasks.
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 phrase 'Check one PDF' implies the tool is for single-file verification, which contrasts with compare_pdfs, but no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given. Alternatives are not named, so the usage context is inferred rather than stated.
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.
Each tool targets a distinct resource: PDF comparison, email verification, PDF verification, and photo verification. There is no overlap in functionality.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (verify_email, verify_pdf, verify_photo, compare_pdfs). The pattern is uniform with only a minor pluralization difference.
With 4 tools, the server is well-scoped for document verification. Each tool adds distinct value without unnecessary bloat.
The tool set covers key verification scenarios for PDFs, emails, and photos. Missing are comparisons for emails and photos, but the core functionality is complete.