Skip to main content
Glama

pdf-splitter

Upload a PDF to work on

pdf_upload

Send a PDF to this hosted endpoint. There is no filesystem here, so instead of a path you upload the file once with pdf_upload and then pass its name as path (or inside paths) to pdf_info, pdf_count, pdf_merge, pdf_split, pdf_pages, pdf_rotate, pdf_stamp, pdf_reorder and pdf_text. Give exactly one of pdf_base64 or url. url: fetch a public file instead of pasting base64 (recommended above about 10 KB): pasting a large base64 payload is slow to write out and can stall the turn before the call is ever sent, while a url costs one line and the fetch happens here. Uploads are kept for your token between calls; pdf_files lists them and pdf_delete_upload removes one. A file this server writes is named the same way and comes back as a download link valid for one hour. The request body cap is 256 KB, which is about 190 KB of PDF once base64-encoded; a url is fetched with a 10 second timeout, at most 3 redirects, public http(s) hosts only, and is capped at 2 MB.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
urlNourl: fetch a public file instead of pasting base64 (recommended above about 10 KB). Public http(s) only; private, link-local and this endpoint's own zone are refused
nameYesName to refer to this PDF by: 1-64 characters of letters, digits, underscore or dash, e.g. "invoice"
pdf_base64NoThe PDF file, base64-encoded

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains persistence across calls, URL fetch constraints (public hosts, timeout, redirects, size cap), request body limits, and how server-written files are named and returned as download links. This gives a clear picture of side effects and limitations.

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?

The description is detailed and informative, but somewhat repetitive, particularly around the URL vs. base64 trade-off and the size limitations. It could be tightened without losing meaning, but the information is well-organized and directly relevant.

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?

The description fully covers the operational context: how uploads are stored, how they are referenced, what limits apply, and how they can be listed or deleted. Since there is no output schema, this level of context is sufficient for an agent to use the tool correctly.

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

Parameters5/5

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

The description complements the schema by explaining the relationship between `pdf_base64` and `url`, emphasizing that exactly one must be provided. It adds practical guidance on base64 size limits, URL restrictions, and the naming format for `name`, all of which go beyond the schema's existing descriptions.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: uploading a PDF to a hosted endpoint for later reference by name. It also distinguishes it from sibling tools by explaining that uploaded files are used as `path` arguments in other PDF operations.

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?

The description provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool, including the choice between `pdf_base64` and `url`, the recommendation to use `url` for files over about 10 KB, and how uploaded names are reused across sibling tools. It also mentions related tools like `pdf_files` and `pdf_delete_upload` for managing uploads.

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.