PDF metadata: page count, byte size, document info fields.
Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {
"file": "<file>"
},
"name": "pdf_info"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| file | Yes | PDF file content as base64 |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden; it does usefully disclose what the tool surfaces (page count, byte size, info fields), implicitly framing it as a read-only inspection. It says nothing about behavior on password-protected or malformed PDFs, whether the full base64 file must be loaded, or how failures are reported.
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?
A single short sentence that front-loads the resource and lists the return fields without padding. It is efficient, though slightly fragmentary and could carry one clause of usage guidance at no real cost.
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?
For a one-parameter metadata reader with complete schema coverage and no output schema, listing the returned fields is exactly the right compensation. Only the absence of any error/encryption behavior note keeps it from a 5.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100% and there is only one parameter, whose schema description ('PDF file content as base64') already fully specifies it. The description adds no further param semantics, so the baseline of 3 applies.
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 names the resource (PDF metadata) and enumerates the specific fields returned: page count, byte size, and document info fields. That clearly separates it from text-extraction (pdf_text), mutation (pdf_merge/pdf_split/pdf_rotate), and scanning (pdf_safe_scan) siblings. It lacks an explicit verb ("Extract"/"Read"), which keeps it short of a 5.
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?
There is no statement about when to use this tool versus pdf_text or pdf_safe_scan, nor any precondition such as whether the PDF must be unencrypted. The agent must infer usage purely from the name and field list.
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.