mcp-ebook-read

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

pdf_list_formulas

List formulas extracted from an ingested PDF, optionally scoped to a specific outline node for targeted retrieval.

Instructions

List formulas from an ingested PDF, optionally scoped to an outline node. The tool infers book/paper mode from doc_id metadata; do not choose a separate book or paper formula tool.

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": {
      "doc_id": "<doc_id>"
    },
    "name": "pdf_list_formulas"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`limit`	No
`doc_id`	Yes
`status`	No
`node_id`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.3.7Jul 13, 2026

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions that the tool infers book/paper mode from doc_id metadata, which is helpful. But it does not disclose other important traits like read-only nature, error handling, or required permissions.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is only two sentences long and front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence adds value without unnecessary detail.

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

Completeness2/5

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

Despite having 4 parameters and no annotations, the description only covers the basic purpose and one parameter. It lacks details on other parameters, behavioral context, and return value expectations (output schema exists but not described).

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

Parameters2/5

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

With 0% schema description coverage, the description only explains the node_id parameter (scoping). It does not describe limit, doc_id, or status parameters, leaving their meaning unclear. This is insufficient for a tool with 4 parameters.

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 verb 'list' and the resource 'formulas from an ingested PDF', with an optional scoping to outline node. It distinguishes from siblings like pdf_list_figures and pdf_read_formula by specifying list vs read.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

Explicitly instructs not to use a separate book/paper formula tool, implying that this tool handles both modes. However, it doesn't specify when not to use this tool (e.g., for reading a single formula) or provide alternatives beyond the sibling list.

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