mcp-ebook-read

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

pdf_read_table

Read extracted PDF tables by providing doc and table IDs, returning structured rows, markdown/html, evidence image, nearby context, and diagnostics.

Instructions

Read one extracted PDF table with structured rows, markdown/html, evidence image, nearby context, and diagnostics.

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>",
      "table_id": "<table_id>"
    },
    "name": "pdf_read_table"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`doc_id`	Yes
`table_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

B3.4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It enumerates return types (structured rows, markdown/html, evidence image, nearby context, diagnostics) but does not disclose side effects, performance, or error conditions.

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?

Single sentence with no wasted words. Core purpose is front-loaded ('Read one extracted PDF table'), followed by a clear list of outputs.

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?

The description covers outputs but omits context about the dependency on pdf_list_tables for table_id. With an output schema existing, the description adds value but misses usage prerequisites.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%. The description does not add information about doc_id or table_id beyond their names. It fails to explain how to obtain table_id, which is critical for correct usage.

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 'Read' and the resource 'one extracted PDF table', and differentiates from siblings like pdf_list_tables by specifying it reads a single table with multiple output formats.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., obtaining table_id from pdf_list_tables) or when not to use it.

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