Extract readable text from PDF files, with optional start and end page limits, to retrieve specific content for analysis or search.
Extract readable text from a PDF file with optional page range boundaries (1-based index).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| end_page | No | Last page to extract (1-based, inclusive). Optional. | |
| file_path | Yes | Absolute or relative path to the PDF file. | |
| start_page | No | First page to extract (1-based, inclusive). Optional. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses little. It does not say what happens with scanned PDFs lacking a text layer (no OCR implied), password-protected or corrupt files, encoding of the returned text, or whether large files are truncated.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with the core action first and the optional modifier second. No wasted words, though it is short enough that structure barely matters.
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 three-parameter read tool with full schema documentation and no output schema, the core is covered. However, with no annotations and no mention of return shape or failure modes (scanned PDFs, unreadable text), an agent lacks context needed to predict results.
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%, so file_path and the two page bounds are already fully documented, including the 1-based inclusive semantics. The description restates the 1-based page-range behavior but adds no format or default details beyond the schema.
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?
States a specific verb+resource: 'Extract readable text from a PDF file', plus scope of the optional page range. It distinguishes itself adequately from siblings like pdf_get_metadata and pdf_search_batch by naming the concrete output (readable text), though it never explicitly contrasts with them.
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?
Gives no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and names no alternatives. The agent must infer from the name alone that full-document text extraction is the intent and that pdf_search_batch or pdf_get_metadata cover other needs.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.