Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
eprintdl

eprintdl

by Jiangjiang-jiang
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

Verify downloaded PDFs

eprint_verify

Checks downloaded IACR ePrint PDFs for valid headers, %%EOF markers, and file size, then lists any corrupted or incomplete files.

Instructions

校验已下载文件是否为完整 PDF（文件头、%%EOF、体积），列出损坏项。

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "eprint_verify"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNo
yearsNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.1.0

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It discloses the three verification criteria and that output is a list of corrupted items. However, it does not state whether the tool is read-only, which files are in scope, or whether it reports on valid files as well as corrupted ones.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

One compact sentence with the purpose front-loaded and the checks in parentheses. Its terseness fits the tool, though it gives up the space that a short clause about parameters could have used.

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?

There is no output schema, no annotations, and no parameter documentation. The description partially covers output by saying it lists corrupted items, but it leaves file scope and parameter meaning unexplained, so it is not complete enough for a tool that takes two filters.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%: two parameters (limit, years) are completely undocumented. The description does not mention either parameter, so an agent cannot tell that verification can be narrowed by year or capped by count. It fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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?

It names a specific verb and resource: verifying downloaded files are complete PDFs, with the concrete checks (file header, %%EOF, size) spelled out. This distinguishes it from eprint_download and eprint_search, but the scope of files it verifies is left implicit.

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?

Usage is only implied by the name and by the phrase '已下载文件' (downloaded files). The description never states when to call this instead of eprint_status, or that it should run after eprint_download.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools