Presio
Server Details
Present PDFs from the browser: upload to start a slideshow or validate Presio sidecars. No auth.
- Status
- Healthy
- Last Tested
- Transport
- Streamable HTTP
- URL
Glama MCP Gateway
Connect through Glama MCP Gateway for full control over tool access and complete visibility into every call.
Full call logging
Every tool call is logged with complete inputs and outputs, so you can debug issues and audit what your agents are doing.
Tool access control
Enable or disable individual tools per connector, so you decide what your agents can and cannot do.
Managed credentials
Glama handles OAuth flows, token storage, and automatic rotation, so credentials never expire on your clients.
Usage analytics
See which tools your agents call, how often, and when, so you can understand usage patterns and catch anomalies.
Tool Definition Quality
Average 3.5/5 across 2 of 2 tools scored.
The two tools have clearly distinct purposes: one validates PDF attachments, the other uploads and starts a presentation. No overlap or ambiguity.
Both tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (check_pdf, present_pdf), making them predictable and easy to understand.
Only 2 tools is minimal for a server that deals with PDF validation and presentations. While narrow in scope, the low count may force agents to rely on external workflows.
Significant gaps exist: no tools for listing presentations, deleting them, or retrieving validation results separately. The surface is incomplete for a typical PDF workflow.
Available Tools
2 toolscheck_pdfCheck PDF sidecarsARead-onlyIdempotentInspect
Validate Presio notes/media sidecar attachments in a PDF. Same as POST /api/check.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| pdf_base64 | Yes | PDF file contents, base64-encoded |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint. The description adds no behavioral context beyond 'validate' and the API reference. It does not disclose return format, error behavior, or side effects, which are minimized by annotations but still lacking.
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?
Two short sentences that are front-loaded with the core action. No extraneous information; every sentence adds value.
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 simple tool with one parameter and good annotations, the description is adequate but lacks details on the validation output (e.g., success/failure indicators). Since no output schema exists, the description should clarify return values.
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 coverage is 100% with one parameter fully described in the schema. The description adds no further meaning to the parameter beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 validates Presio notes/media sidecar attachments in a PDF, with a specific verb and resource. It also references the API endpoint for clarity. The sibling 'present_pdf' is for presentation, making the purpose distinct.
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 description implies usage for validation but does not explicitly state when to use or not use this tool. It references the API endpoint as 'same as' but provides no exclusion criteria or alternatives beyond the sibling name hint.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
present_pdfPresent a PDFAInspect
Upload a PDF to start a local Presio presentation. Returns a url — open it in a browser to finish handoff (skips share). Same as POST /api/present.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| filename | No | Original filename, e.g. deck.pdf | |
| pdf_base64 | Yes | PDF file contents, base64-encoded |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations provide no meaningful constraints (all false), so description carries full burden. It discloses upload, local presentation, URL return, and handoff skip, but omits side effects like PDF persistence, authentication, or rate limits. Acceptable but not comprehensive.
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?
Extremely concise: one sentence plus a clarifying fragment. Front-loaded with action and followed by essential notes. No redundant information.
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?
Given the simplicity (2 params, no output schema, one sibling), the description covers basic purpose and return value but lacks context on prerequisites (e.g., Presio environment) and behavior guarantees. Sufficient for a straightforward tool but leaves some gaps.
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 coverage is 100% with clear parameter descriptions. The description adds no new semantic information beyond the schema, meeting the baseline but not exceeding it.
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?
Clearly states 'Upload a PDF to start a local Presio presentation' with a specific verb (Upload) and resource (PDF). Differentiates from sibling check_pdf by implication (check vs present).
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?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. Sibling check_pdf exists but no differentiation criteria provided. The 'skips share' hint is vague and assumes knowledge of a share flow.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Claim this connector by publishing a /.well-known/glama.json file on your server's domain with the following structure:
{
"$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/connector.json",
"maintainers": [{ "email": "your-email@example.com" }]
}The email address must match the email associated with your Glama account. Once published, Glama will automatically detect and verify the file within a few minutes.
Control your server's listing on Glama, including description and metadata
Access analytics and receive server usage reports
Get monitoring and health status updates for your server
Feature your server to boost visibility and reach more users
For users:
Full audit trail – every tool call is logged with inputs and outputs for compliance and debugging
Granular tool control – enable or disable individual tools per connector to limit what your AI agents can do
Centralized credential management – store and rotate API keys and OAuth tokens in one place
Change alerts – get notified when a connector changes its schema, adds or removes tools, or updates tool definitions, so nothing breaks silently
For server owners:
Proven adoption – public usage metrics on your listing show real-world traction and build trust with prospective users
Tool-level analytics – see which tools are being used most, helping you prioritize development and documentation
Direct user feedback – users can report issues and suggest improvements through the listing, giving you a channel you would not have otherwise
The connector status is unhealthy when Glama is unable to successfully connect to the server. This can happen for several reasons:
The server is experiencing an outage
The URL of the server is wrong
Credentials required to access the server are missing or invalid
If you are the owner of this MCP connector and would like to make modifications to the listing, including providing test credentials for accessing the server, please contact support@glama.ai.
Discussions
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!