pdf-toolkit-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

ocr_pdf

Run OCR on a PDF to make scanned text selectable and searchable. Specify language codes like 'eng' or 'spa' for accurate detection.

Instructions

Run OCR on a PDF to make scanned text selectable/searchable. Accepts one or more language codes (e.g. "eng", "spa"). Large or image-heavy PDFs can take more than 60 seconds.

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": {
      "input_file": "<input_file>"
    },
    "name": "ocr_pdf"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`languages`	No	ISO 639-2/T 3-letter language codes to detect (e.g. ["eng"], ["spa"], ["eng","spa"]). Default: ["eng"].
`input_file`	Yes	Path to the PDF file to OCR.
`output_path`	No	Optional output path. If it ends with the expected extension, the file is written there. If it is a directory, the file is placed inside with a timestamped name. Defaults to the same directory as the first input.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.2Jul 28, 2026

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Discloses significant time (>60 seconds) for large/image-heavy PDFs, which is useful. No annotations exist, so description carries full burden. Missing disclosure on whether the tool overwrites the input file or creates a new one, and if it is destructive.

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?

Two concise sentences. First sentence states clear purpose, second adds language details and time warning. No wasted words.

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?

No output schema, so description should explain return value or result. It says 'make scanned text selectable/searchable' but doesn't specify what the tool returns (e.g., file path, success message). Also lacks error handling hints. Barely adequate for a tool with this complexity.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 100% with detailed param descriptions. Description adds value by giving language code examples ('eng', 'spa') and noting that large PDFs take >60s, which is not in schema. Adds contextual nuance beyond schema.

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?

Clear verb+resource (Run OCR on a PDF) with explicit benefit (make scanned text selectable/searchable). Distinct from sibling tools like pdf_to_jpg or pdf_to_word.

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?

Implied usage for OCR, but no explicit when-to-use vs alternatives. Mentions language code acceptance but no guidance on when to select which languages or when to avoid this tool.

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

Deploy Server