Extract text from PDF, DOCX, Markdown, or text files and return it as Markdown, with an optional character cap.
Read a PDF, DOCX, Markdown or text file and return its text as Markdown.
Args: path: Absolute path to the file on this machine. max_chars: Cap on returned text.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | Yes | ||
| max_chars | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the read-only nature implicitly and states the output is Markdown, but it omits what happens when max_chars is exceeded (truncation marker? silent cut?), how unsupported or missing files behave, and whether extraction is lossy for tables/images.
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 stating purpose and output, followed by a compact args list — no filler. The Args block is slightly redundant with the schema but remains efficient.
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 two-parameter read tool with no output schema this covers the essentials (what is read, what is emitted, a size cap), but it is thin on edge cases — unsupported format handling, truncation signalling, and relative-vs-absolute path failure are all unaddressed.
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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does define both params: path as an absolute path on this machine (a useful constraint) and max_chars as a cap on returned text. It still leaves the default value (200000) and the truncation behavior unexplained, which is the most consequential part of max_chars.
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 names a concrete verb and resource ('Read a PDF, DOCX, Markdown or text file and return its text as Markdown') and enumerates the supported input formats plus the output format. It does not, however, distinguish itself from file-touching siblings such as humanizer_humanize_file or humanizer_assess_file, so an agent must infer that this one only extracts text without processing.
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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no mention of the sibling tools that also take a file path. Usage is only implied by the verb 'extract', so an agent choosing among humanize_file, assess_file, and this tool gets no routing help.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.