pdf-mcp

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

With no annotations, description carries full burden and discloses important behavioral traits: automatic depth reduction for large TOCs and the presence of an auto_trimmed_to_level response field. However, omits discussion of error conditions (missing file, malformed PDF) or idempotency guarantees.

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?

Well-structured with purpose front-loaded, followed by behavioral note, then structured Args documentation. No wasted words. Minor improvement possible: the auto-trimming sentence could be split for clarity, but overall efficient for the information density provided.

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?

Given zero schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description achieves strong completeness by documenting the output field auto_trimmed_to_level and explaining parameter interactions. Would benefit from brief note on return structure format (array/tree).

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?

Excellent compensation for 0% schema coverage. Args section provides rich semantics for all 3 parameters: filename is clarified as 'Path to a PDF file'; parent includes filtering logic, case-sensitivity note, and concrete example ('pass a chapter title'); max_level includes numeric mapping (1=chapters) and relative behavior with parent.

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?

Description opens with specific verb+resource: 'Get the table of contents (bookmarks/outline) from a PDF.' This clearly distinguishes from siblings like get_page_text (content extraction) and get_pdf_info (general metadata) by specifying navigation structure extraction.

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?

Provides implicit guidance through explaining auto-trimming behavior when max_level is omitted and complex interactions between parent/max_level parameters. However, lacks explicit 'when to use vs alternatives' (e.g., when to prefer this over get_pdf_info for document structure).

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