Skip to main content
Glama
enesjakozh
JDJR2024

Markdownify MCP Server - UTF-8 Enhanced

by JDJR2024
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

Markdownify MCP 서버 - UTF-8 향상

이는 원래 Markdownify MCP 프로젝트 의 강화된 버전으로, UTF-8 인코딩 지원이 개선되었고 다국어 콘텐츠 처리가 최적화되었습니다.

중국어판

개선 사항

  • 포괄적인 UTF-8 인코딩 지원이 추가되었습니다.

  • 다국어 콘텐츠의 최적화된 처리

  • Windows 시스템의 인코딩 문제 해결

  • 개선된 오류 처리 메커니즘

Related MCP server: MCP Markdown Conversion Server

원본 프로젝트와의 주요 차이점

  1. 향상된 인코딩 지원:

    • 모든 작업에서 전체 UTF-8 지원

    • 중국어, 일본어, 한국어 및 기타 비 ASCII 문자의 적절한 처리

    • Windows 특정 인코딩 문제(cmd.exe 및 PowerShell 호환성)가 해결되었습니다.

  2. 향상된 오류 처리:

    • 영어와 중국어로 된 자세한 오류 메시지

    • 네트워크 문제에 대한 더 나은 예외 처리

    • 변환 실패에 대한 우아한 대체 메커니즘

  3. 확장된 기능:

    • 여러 파일의 일괄 처리에 대한 지원이 추가되었습니다.

    • 향상된 YouTube 비디오 대본 처리

    • 다양한 파일 형식에서 메타데이터 추출 개선

    • 문서 서식의 더 나은 보존

  4. 성능 최적화:

    • 대용량 파일 변환을 위한 최적화된 메모리 사용

    • 다국어 콘텐츠의 더 빠른 처리

    • 종속성 충돌 감소

  5. 더 나은 개발 경험:

    • 포괄적인 디버깅 옵션

    • 세부 로깅 시스템

    • 환경별 구성 지원

    • 영어와 중국어로 명확하게 문서화됨

특징

다양한 파일 유형을 Markdown으로 변환하는 것을 지원합니다.

  • PDF 파일

  • 이미지(메타데이터 포함)

  • 오디오(전사 포함)

  • Word 문서(DOCX)

  • Excel 스프레드시트(XLSX)

  • 파워포인트 프레젠테이션(PPTX)

  • 웹 콘텐츠:

    • YouTube 비디오 대본

    • 검색 결과

    • 일반 웹 페이지

  • 기존 마크다운 파일

빠른 시작

  1. 이 저장소를 복제하세요:

    지엑스피1

  2. 종속성 설치:

    pnpm install

    참고: 이렇게 하면 uv 와 관련 Python 종속성도 설치됩니다.

  3. 프로젝트를 빌드하세요:

    pnpm run build

  4. 서버를 시작합니다:

    pnpm start

요구 사항

  • Node.js 16.0 이상

  • Python 3.8 이상

  • pnpm 패키지 관리자

  • 깃

자세한 설치 가이드

1. 환경 설정

  1. Node.js 설치:

  2. pnpm을 설치하세요:

    npm install -g pnpm
pnpm --version

  3. Python 설치:

    • Python 공식 웹사이트 에서 다운로드

    • 설치 중에 Python이 PATH에 추가되었는지 확인하세요.

    • 설치 확인: python --version

  4. (Windows 전용) UTF-8 지원 구성:

    # Set system-wide UTF-8
setx PYTHONIOENCODING UTF-8
# Set current session UTF-8
set PYTHONIOENCODING=UTF-8
# Enable UTF-8 in command prompt
chcp 65001

2. 프로젝트 설정

  1. 저장소를 복제합니다.

    git clone https://github.com/JDJR2024/markdownify-mcp-utf8.git
cd markdownify-mcp-utf8

  2. Python 가상 환경을 만들고 활성화하세요.

    # Windows
python -m venv .venv
.venv\Scripts\activate

# Linux/macOS
python3 -m venv .venv
source .venv/bin/activate

  3. 프로젝트 종속성 설치:

    # Install Node.js dependencies
pnpm install

# Install Python dependencies (will be handled by setup.sh)
./setup.sh

  4. 프로젝트를 빌드하세요:

    pnpm run build

3. 검증

  1. 서버를 시작합니다:

    pnpm start

  2. 설치를 테스트하세요:

    # Convert a web page
python convert_utf8.py "https://example.com"

# Convert a local file
python convert_utf8.py "path/to/your/file.docx"

사용 가이드

기본 사용법

  1. 웹 페이지 변환:

    python convert_utf8.py "https://example.com"

    변환된 마크다운은 converted_result.md 로 저장됩니다.

  2. 로컬 파일 변환:

    # Convert DOCX
python convert_utf8.py "document.docx"

# Convert PDF
python convert_utf8.py "document.pdf"

# Convert PowerPoint
python convert_utf8.py "presentation.pptx"

# Convert Excel
python convert_utf8.py "spreadsheet.xlsx"

  3. YouTube 동영상 변환:

    python convert_utf8.py "https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VIDEO_ID"

고급 사용법

  1. 환경 변수:

    # Set custom UV path
export UV_PATH="/custom/path/to/uv"

# Set custom output directory
export MARKDOWN_OUTPUT_DIR="/custom/output/path"

  2. 일괄 처리: URL이나 파일 경로를 사용하여 일괄 파일(예: convert_batch.txt )을 만듭니다.

    https://example1.com
https://example2.com
file1.docx
file2.pdf

    그런 다음 실행하세요.

    while read -r line; do python convert_utf8.py "$line"; done < convert_batch.txt

문제 해결

  1. 일반적인 문제:

    • 인코딩 오류가 표시되면 UTF-8이 올바르게 설정되었는지 확인하세요.

    • Windows에서 권한 문제가 있는 경우 관리자 권한으로 실행하세요.

    • Python 경로 문제의 경우 가상 환경이 활성화되어 있는지 확인하세요.

  2. 디버깅:

    # Enable debug output
export DEBUG=true
python convert_utf8.py "your_file.docx"

용법

명령줄

웹 페이지를 마크다운으로 변환:

python convert_utf8.py "https://example.com"

로컬 파일 변환:

python convert_utf8.py "path/to/your/file.docx"

데스크톱 앱 통합

이 서버를 데스크톱 앱과 통합하려면 앱의 서버 구성에 다음을 추가하세요.

{
  "mcpServers": {
    "markdownify": {
      "command": "node",
      "args": [
        "{ABSOLUTE_PATH}/dist/index.js"
      ],
      "env": {
        "UV_PATH": "/path/to/uv"
      }
    }
  }
}

문제 해결

  1. 인코딩 문제

    • 문자 인코딩 문제가 발생하면 PYTHONIOENCODING 환경 변수가 utf-8 로 설정되어 있는지 확인하세요.

    • Windows 사용자는 UTF-8 지원을 활성화하기 위해 chcp 65001 실행해야 할 수 있습니다.

  2. 권한 문제

    • 충분한 파일 읽기/쓰기 권한이 있는지 확인하세요.

    • Windows에서는 관리자 권한으로 실행해야 할 수도 있습니다.

감사의 말

이 프로젝트는 Zach Caceres의 원작을 기반으로 합니다. 뛰어난 기여를 해주신 원작자께 감사드립니다.

특허

이 프로젝트는 MIT 라이선스에 따라 계속 라이선스가 부여됩니다. 자세한 내용은 라이선스 파일을 참조하세요.

기여하다

기여를 환영합니다! 풀 리퀘스트를 제출하기 전에 다음을 확인해 주세요.

  1. 코드가 프로젝트의 코딩 표준을 따르는지 확인하세요.

  2. 필요한 테스트 및 문서 추가

  3. README의 관련 섹션을 업데이트하세요

연락하다

문제나 제안 사항이 있으시면:

  1. 문제 제출: https://github.com/JDJR2024/markdownify-mcp-utf8/issues

  2. 풀 리퀘스트 만들기: https://github.com/JDJR2024/markdownify-mcp-utf8/pulls

  3. 이메일: jdidndosmmxmx@gmail.com

Available Tools

10 tools
audio-to-markdownC

Convert an audio file to markdown, including transcription if possible

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
filepathYesAbsolute path of the audio file to convert

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool converts audio to markdown with transcription, but lacks details on permissions needed, rate limits, error handling, or what 'if possible' implies (e.g., supported formats, transcription accuracy). For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its operation and constraints.

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 is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's function without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the core action ('Convert an audio file to markdown') and adds a useful qualifier ('including transcription if possible'). Every part earns its place, making it highly concise and well-structured.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's complexity (audio processing and transcription) and lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain return values (e.g., markdown content format), error cases, or behavioral details like supported audio formats. For a tool with no structured data to rely on, this leaves the agent under-informed about how to use it effectively.

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

Parameters3/5

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

The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what the input schema provides. The schema has 100% coverage with a clear description for 'filepath' as the 'Absolute path of the audio file to convert.' Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate with additional semantics like file format requirements or path examples.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Convert an audio file to markdown, including transcription if possible.' It specifies the verb ('convert'), resource ('audio file'), and outcome ('to markdown'), distinguishing it from siblings that convert other file types (e.g., pdf-to-markdown). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings beyond the resource type, such as by noting unique features like audio-specific transcription.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions 'including transcription if possible,' which hints at a capability, but doesn't specify prerequisites (e.g., file format support), exclusions, or direct comparisons to siblings like youtube-to-markdown for audio from videos. Without explicit when/when-not instructions, it leaves usage ambiguous.

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

bing-search-to-markdownC

Convert a Bing search results page to markdown

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
urlYesURL of the Bing search results page

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('Convert') but doesn't explain what the conversion entails (e.g., formatting, extraction of specific elements), potential errors (e.g., invalid URLs), or output characteristics (e.g., markdown structure). This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's 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 is a single, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly without unnecessary details.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address key aspects like what the markdown output includes (e.g., search results, metadata), error handling, or how it differs from sibling tools, leaving the agent with insufficient context for reliable use.

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

Parameters3/5

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

The schema description coverage is 100%, with the parameter 'url' clearly documented in the input schema. The description doesn't add any additional meaning beyond this, such as URL format requirements or examples, but the schema provides adequate baseline information, justifying a score of 3.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the verb ('Convert') and resource ('Bing search results page'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'webpage-to-markdown' or 'get-markdown-file', which could cause confusion about when to use this specific tool versus similar alternatives.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'webpage-to-markdown' that might handle general webpages, the description lacks context on prerequisites (e.g., requiring a Bing search URL) or exclusions, leaving the agent to guess based on the tool name alone.

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

docx-to-markdownC

Convert a DOCX file to markdown

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
filepathYesAbsolute path of the DOCX file to convert

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the conversion action but doesn't describe what happens during conversion (e.g., formatting preservation, error handling, output location, or performance characteristics). For a file conversion tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's 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 is extremely concise—a single sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the core purpose, making it easy to scan and understand immediately. Every word earns its place by directly contributing to the tool's intent.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete for a file conversion tool. It doesn't explain what the output is (e.g., markdown text, saved file), where it goes, or any limitations (e.g., file size, supported DOCX features). With siblings offering similar conversions, more context is needed to differentiate and use this tool effectively.

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

Parameters3/5

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

The schema description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'filepath' well-documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific details beyond what the schema provides, such as file format requirements or conversion options. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the verb ('convert') and resource ('DOCX file to markdown'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings by specifying the DOCX format, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with other conversion tools like pdf-to-markdown or pptx-to-markdown.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With multiple sibling tools for converting different formats to markdown (e.g., pdf-to-markdown, pptx-to-markdown), there is no indication of when DOCX conversion is appropriate or what distinguishes it from other conversion methods.

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

get-markdown-fileC

Get a markdown file by absolute file path

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
filepathYesAbsolute path to file of markdown'd text

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the tool retrieves a file but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as error handling (e.g., if file doesn't exist), permissions needed, rate limits, or output format. This leaves significant gaps for a tool that likely involves file system access.

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 is a single, clear sentence with zero waste. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it efficient and easy to understand without unnecessary details.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given no annotations, no output schema, and a simple input schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover key aspects like what happens on failure, the return format (e.g., raw markdown text or structured data), or how it differs from sibling tools, which are crucial for effective use.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, with the parameter 'filepath' fully documented in the schema as 'Absolute path to file of markdown'd text'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, such as examples or constraints, so it meets the baseline score of 3.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('a markdown file'), specifying it retrieves content by absolute file path. However, it doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like 'audio-to-markdown' or 'webpage-to-markdown', which are conversion tools rather than retrieval tools, so it's not fully differentiated.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description implies usage for retrieving existing markdown files, but it doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., file must exist), exclusions (e.g., not for creating or converting files), or compare to siblings like 'docx-to-markdown' for conversion tasks.

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

image-to-markdownC

Convert an image to markdown, including metadata and description

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
filepathYesAbsolute path of the image file to convert

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions that the conversion includes 'metadata and description,' which adds some context about output content. However, it fails to disclose critical behavioral traits such as error handling (e.g., for invalid file paths), performance aspects (e.g., processing time or size limits), or output format details. For a tool with no annotations, this is a significant gap.

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 is extremely concise and front-loaded, consisting of a single sentence that directly states the tool's function. There is no wasted language or redundancy, making it efficient and easy to parse. Every word earns its place by conveying essential information.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the complexity of file conversion and the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what the markdown output includes beyond 'metadata and description,' such as formatting details or error cases. For a tool that performs a non-trivial operation with no structured output information, more context is needed to guide the agent effectively.

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

Parameters3/5

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

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the 'filepath' parameter clearly documented as 'Absolute path of the image file to convert.' The description does not add any meaning beyond this, as it does not elaborate on parameter usage or constraints. According to the rules, with high schema coverage (>80%), the baseline score is 3, which is appropriate here.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: converting an image to markdown, including metadata and description. It specifies the verb ('convert') and resource ('image'), making it easy to understand. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'pdf-to-markdown' or 'webpage-to-markdown', which perform similar conversions on different file types, so it lacks sibling differentiation.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any context, prerequisites, or exclusions, such as when to choose 'image-to-markdown' over other conversion tools like 'pdf-to-markdown' for different file formats. This leaves the agent without clear usage instructions.

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

pdf-to-markdownC

Convert a PDF file to markdown

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
filepathYesAbsolute path of the PDF file to convert

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the conversion action but doesn't mention potential limitations (e.g., formatting accuracy, large file handling, error conditions), output details, or side effects. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how it behaves.

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 is a single, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it immediately understandable. This is an excellent example of conciseness in tool descriptions.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete for a file conversion tool. It doesn't address output format details, error handling, or performance considerations, which are crucial for an agent to use it effectively. The simplicity of one parameter doesn't compensate for these omissions.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'filepath' fully documented in the schema as 'Absolute path of the PDF file to convert'. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond implying PDF file input, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage without compensating value.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the verb 'convert' and the resource 'PDF file to markdown', making the purpose unambiguous. It doesn't explicitly distinguish from siblings like 'docx-to-markdown' or 'pptx-to-markdown', but the PDF specificity is inherent. This is clear but lacks explicit sibling differentiation.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'docx-to-markdown' and 'webpage-to-markdown', there's no indication of prerequisites, file format requirements, or comparative use cases. It's a basic statement of function without contextual usage advice.

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

pptx-to-markdownC

Convert a PPTX file to markdown

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
filepathYesAbsolute path of the PPTX file to convert

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the conversion action but lacks behavioral details: it doesn't mention if the tool overwrites files, requires specific permissions, handles errors, or outputs to a specific location. For a file conversion tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 is a single, efficient sentence with zero waste: 'Convert a PPTX file to markdown'. It is front-loaded and appropriately sized, earning its place by clearly stating the core functionality without unnecessary elaboration.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the complexity of file conversion (which involves input/output handling and potential errors), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (e.g., markdown text, file path), error conditions, or dependencies, leaving gaps for an AI agent to use it correctly.

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

Parameters3/5

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

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the 'filepath' parameter well-documented as 'Absolute path of the PPTX file to convert'. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage without extra value.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description 'Convert a PPTX file to markdown' clearly states the verb 'Convert' and the resource 'PPTX file', making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings by specifying the PPTX format, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from similar conversion tools like 'docx-to-markdown' beyond the file type.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'docx-to-markdown' and 'pdf-to-markdown', it doesn't specify scenarios where PPTX conversion is preferred or any prerequisites (e.g., file format compatibility). Usage is implied by the tool name but not articulated.

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

webpage-to-markdownC

Convert a webpage to markdown

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
urlYesURL of the webpage to convert

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the conversion action but lacks details on traits like error handling (e.g., invalid URLs, network issues), performance (e.g., timeouts, size limits), or output specifics (e.g., markdown format quality, included elements). This is a significant gap for a tool with no structured safety hints.

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 is extremely concise—a single, direct sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action, making it easy to parse quickly. Every word earns its place by conveying the essential purpose without fluff.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's complexity (conversion operation), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address behavioral aspects like what happens on failure, what the markdown output includes, or limitations (e.g., dynamic content handling). For a tool with no structured safety or output info, more context is needed.

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

Parameters3/5

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

The schema description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'url' fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying the URL is for a webpage, which is already clear from the schema. This meets the baseline score when the schema does the heavy lifting.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Convert') and resource ('a webpage to markdown'), making it immediately understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from its siblings (e.g., 'pdf-to-markdown', 'docx-to-markdown'), which all convert different content types to markdown, so it doesn't reach the highest score.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention any prerequisites (e.g., URL accessibility), exclusions (e.g., unsupported webpage types), or comparisons to sibling tools like 'bing-search-to-markdown' for web content. This leaves the agent with minimal context for selection.

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

xlsx-to-markdownC

Convert an XLSX file to markdown

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
filepathYesAbsolute path of the XLSX file to convert

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool converts files but doesn't explain how the conversion works, what happens to the original file, or any limitations like file size or formatting issues. This leaves key behavioral traits unspecified.

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 is extremely concise—just one sentence—and front-loaded with the core action. There's no wasted language, making it easy to parse quickly. This efficiency is ideal for a simple tool.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like conversion quality or error handling, and with no output schema, it fails to explain what the markdown output looks like. For a conversion tool, this leaves significant gaps in understanding.

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

Parameters3/5

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

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the 'filepath' parameter clearly documented. The description doesn't add any extra meaning beyond the schema, such as examples or constraints, but since the schema is comprehensive, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: converting XLSX files to markdown format. It specifies the verb 'convert' and the resource 'XLSX file', making it easy to understand. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'docx-to-markdown' or 'pdf-to-markdown' beyond the file type, which keeps it from a perfect score.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention any prerequisites, such as file format requirements or when other conversion tools might be more appropriate. This lack of context makes it harder for an AI agent to choose correctly among the many sibling tools.

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

youtube-to-markdownC

Convert a YouTube video to markdown, including transcript if available

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
urlYesURL of the YouTube video

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral insight. It mentions transcript inclusion 'if available', hinting at conditional behavior, but lacks details on error handling, rate limits, authentication needs, or output format beyond markdown.

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 is a single, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and includes a useful qualifier about transcripts, making it appropriately concise.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the markdown output contains (e.g., structure, metadata), potential errors, or dependencies like internet access, leaving significant gaps for agent usage.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents the 'url' parameter fully. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond implying the URL must be for a YouTube video, which is minimal value over the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the verb 'convert' and the resource 'YouTube video to markdown', specifying it includes transcript if available. It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on YouTube specifically, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with other conversion tools.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'audio-to-markdown' or 'webpage-to-markdown'. The description implies usage for YouTube videos but doesn't mention prerequisites, limitations, or comparative advantages.

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

Tool Schema Changelog

Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. 10 tool updatesv1.0.0
    • First observedaudio-to-markdown
    • First observedbing-search-to-markdown
    • First observeddocx-to-markdown
    • First observedget-markdown-file
    • First observedimage-to-markdown
    • First observedpdf-to-markdown
    • First observedpptx-to-markdown
    • First observedwebpage-to-markdown
    • First observedxlsx-to-markdown
    • First observedyoutube-to-markdown
Deploy Server
One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

Scored across 10 tools

Disambiguation5/5

Every tool has a clearly distinct purpose based on the input source type (audio, Bing search, DOCX, file, image, PDF, PPTX, webpage, XLSX, YouTube). There is no overlap or ambiguity—each tool handles a specific format or source, making it easy for an agent to select the correct one based on the input.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tool names follow a consistent pattern: [source]-to-markdown or get-markdown-file, using snake_case throughout. This predictable naming scheme (e.g., audio-to-markdown, pdf-to-markdown) makes the tools easy to understand and navigate, with no deviations in style.

Tool Count5/5

With 10 tools, the server is well-scoped for its purpose of converting various formats to markdown. Each tool earns its place by covering a distinct input type, providing comprehensive coverage without being overwhelming or sparse for the domain.

Completeness5/5

The tool surface is complete for the server's purpose of markdown conversion, covering a wide range of common input sources (audio, documents, images, web content, videos). There are no obvious gaps; agents can handle diverse conversion tasks without dead ends or missing operations.

Maintenance

ActivityInactive
ResponsivenessNo issues

Resources

Related MCP Connectors

Related MCP Servers

Appeared in Searches