unlock_pdfRemove password protection from a PDF by providing its current password and a public URL or Base64-encoded file data.
Remove password protection from a PDF.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| password | Yes | Current password of the PDF. | |
| source_url | No | Public URL of the PDF. | |
| file_base64 | No | Base64-encoded PDF. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.6Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations provide idempotentHint and openWorldHint, but the description adds no behavioral context beyond restating the operation. It does not disclose whether a new file is produced, whether the input is modified, or any side effects of the unlock operation.
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?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word is informative, and the operation is stated immediately.
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?
The input schema and output schema already cover parameter and return details, and the tool is simple enough that a one-line description suffices for selection. The only minor omission is explicit guidance about choosing between source_url and file_base64, but the schema describes both.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the parameters are already well documented by the input schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, which is acceptable given the baseline for full schema coverage.
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?
The description uses a specific verb ('Remove') and names the resource ('password protection from a PDF'), clearly stating the tool's function. It is readily distinguishable from sibling tools, especially protect_pdf, because it performs the inverse operation.
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?
No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor are any exclusions or prerequisites mentioned. The intended use is implied by the name and description, but the description never explicitly states when it should be selected.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.