Skip to main content
Glama

ReMCP

by site.remcp
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Pdf Split

pdf_split
Destructive

Use this to split a selected local PDF into separate files or page groups using requested page boundaries. Verify the input and destination directory first; new output files are created.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pathYesPermitted local filesystem path.
pagesNoPage list/ranges such as 1-3,5.
deviceYesReMCP device id returned by list_devices. Required for every device operation.
outputNoOptional permitted output path; when omitted the tool may update the input according to its action.
patternNoOutput filename pattern where supported.
output_dirNoPermitted directory for generated output files.

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
dataNoPDF action structured result for pdf_action. Stable fields are declared explicitly; platform-specific fields may be added. Large results may return truncated/bytes/preview instead of the full payload.
textYesConcise human-readable result of the tool call.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedInput schema / required
      Previous value: -[
-  "device"
-]New value: +[
+  "device",
+  "path"
+]
  2. Added

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false and non-idempotent, and the description adds that new output files are created. However, it never warns about overwriting existing outputs or that the input PDF itself may be modified, which is the key risk implied by destructiveHint and by the schema's note on omitted output. With annotations covering the safety profile, this is adequate but shallow.

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?

Two compact sentences with the action front-loaded and no filler. The second sentence awkwardly bundles verification advice with the output-file behavior, but nothing is wasted.

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

Completeness4/5

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

An output schema exists so return values needn't be explained, and the annotations plus full schema coverage carry most of the burden. The main missing piece is what happens when 'output' is omitted (whether the input file is modified in place), which matters for a destructive tool.

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%, so all six parameters (path, pages, device, output, pattern, output_dir) are already documented in the schema. The description only echoes 'page boundaries' and 'destination directory' without adding syntax, defaults, or interaction rules. Baseline 3 applies.

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

Purpose4/5

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

States a specific verb and resource ('split a selected local PDF into separate files or page groups') plus the mechanism (requested page boundaries). It is clearly a PDF operation, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from close siblings like pdf_extract_pages or pdf_merge.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

Gives a precondition ('Verify the input and destination directory first') which is useful operational guidance, but offers no when-to-use/when-not guidance and never routes the agent to pdf_extract_pages or pdf_merge instead. Usage is only implied.

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

All ReMCP toolsInspect
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.

Resources