mcp-ebook-read

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

pdf_read_formula

Read a specific formula from a PDF document, returning its LaTeX representation, status, surrounding context, and evidence image. Supports both book and paper modes.

Instructions

Read one formula from an ingested PDF with LaTeX, status, context, and evidence image. The tool infers book/paper mode from doc_id metadata.

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>",
      "formula_id": "<formula_id>"
    },
    "name": "pdf_read_formula"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`doc_id`	Yes
`formula_id`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.3.7Jul 13, 2026

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

The description discloses that it infers book/paper mode from doc_id metadata, which is a behavioral trait. However, without annotations, it does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only or mention any permissions, rate limits, or error behavior.

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 consists of two concise sentences without superfluous words. The first sentence covers purpose and output, the second adds behavioral context.

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?

Given the tool has only two required parameters and an output schema exists, the description is somewhat complete. However, it lacks information on how to obtain formula_id (e.g., from pdf_list_formulas) and does not cover error cases or mode inference specifics.

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 should explain the parameters. It mentions doc_id and formula_id but does not describe their meaning, format, or how to obtain them. This adds minimal value beyond the parameter names.

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 tool reads one formula from an ingested PDF and specifies the output components (LaTeX, status, context, evidence image). It distinguishes itself from sibling tool 'pdf_list_formulas' which lists formulas.

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?

The description implies usage for reading a specific formula, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus pdf_list_formulas or other read tools. No guidance on prerequisites or alternatives.

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