Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
mcp-document-intelligence

mcp-document-intelligence

by AndreasDietzel
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

smart_rename

Analyze document content to generate an intelligent filename from detected date, company, type, and reference numbers, with a preview option before renaming.

Instructions

AI-powered smart rename: analyzes document content and renames it intelligently based on detected date, company, document type, and reference numbers. Uses Perplexity AI when configured, falls back to pattern matching.

Tool call template

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": {
      "filePath": "<filePath>"
    },
    "name": "smart_rename"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
dryRunNoPreview only — do not rename (default: false)
filePathYesAbsolute path of the file to analyze and rename

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv4.6.0

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the internal engine (Perplexity vs. pattern matching) and that it reads file content, but says nothing about the fact that this mutates the filesystem, whether an existing file is overwritten, reversibility (undo_operation exists as a sibling), required permissions or API-key setup, or what happens on failure. The engine detail is useful context, but the mutation profile an agent most needs is absent.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the action and the naming signals, with no filler. The engine/fallback sentence earns its place by explaining behavior; the only improvement would be repurposing that space for mutation and routing guidance.

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

Completeness3/5

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

For a two-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description explains what it does and how names are derived, but leaves open what is returned (new path?), what happens to the original, and when to prefer rename_document. Adequate but with clear gaps for a filesystem-mutating operation.

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 both filePath and dryRun are already documented in the schema, including the preview semantics of dryRun. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what structured fields provide, so the baseline of 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?

The description pairs a specific verb (rename) with a specific resource (document/file) and enumerates the signals used to derive the new name: date, company, document type, reference numbers. It implicitly distinguishes itself from rename_document by emphasizing content analysis, but never names that sibling explicitly, so an agent must infer the split.

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?

Usage is only implied — an agent can infer 'use this when you want an automatically derived filename' — but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or routing to siblings like rename_document, analyze_document, or suggest_structure. The mention of a Perplexity fallback hints at configuration prerequisites but doesn't state them as conditions.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools