Parse PDFs, Word, Excel, and images with OCR to extract text, chunks, and metadata from documents. Provide a file path to convert varied formats into readable content for Claude.
Parse any document including images with OCR (PDF, Word, Excel, Images, etc.)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| file_path | Yes | Path to the document or image file |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does reveal that OCR is applied and which formats are supported, but says nothing about permissions, file size limits, local vs. remote path requirements, or whether output is plain text or structured. Significant behavioral gaps remain for a mutation-free but resource-heavy processing tool.
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?
One front-loaded sentence that states the action, the OCR behavior, and supported formats without padding. It is efficient, though the format enumeration ('etc.') is slightly loose.
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 single-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the basic action and input types but omits what the agent gets back (raw text, structured blocks, page data) and how errors or unsupported files are handled. Adequate but with clear gaps.
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?
There is a single required parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already fully documents file_path. The description adds no syntax, format, or path-resolution detail beyond what the schema provides, making the baseline of 3 appropriate.
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 (parse) and resource (document), and clarifies that images are handled via OCR with a list of supported formats. However, it does not differentiate itself from close siblings like extract_text, ocr_image, or chunk_document, which an agent could easily confuse it with.
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?
There is no guidance on when to choose this tool over extract_text, ocr_image, or chunk_document, nor any mention of prerequisites or exclusions. The phrase 'any document' is inclusive but gives the agent no routing criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.