pdfnative-mcp

Embed LTV validation material (PAdES B-LT)

add_ltv

Embed certificate and revocation data (DSS/VRI) into signed PDFs so future verifiers can validate PAdES signatures, using online or offline material.

Instructions

PAdES B-LT: embed a Document Security Store (/DSS + per-signature /VRI) with the certificates and OCSP/CRL material future verifiers need ('LTV enabled' in Adobe Reader once the root is trusted). Ladder step 3: sign_pdf (profile:'pades', timestamp:true) → add_ltv → timestamp_pdf. mode 'online' (default) fetches through the OPERATOR revocation provider (PDFNATIVE_MCP_REVOCATION + PDFNATIVE_MCP_NETWORK_ALLOWED_HOSTS; REVOCATION_NOT_CONFIGURED otherwise — no network without it); mode 'offline' embeds caller-supplied DER certificates / OCSP responses / CRLs with zero network. Incremental (existing /DSS merged). Needs ≥ 1 signed signature; unencrypted PDFs only.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`mode`	No	'online': fetch OCSP/CRL through the operator provider (PDFNATIVE_MCP_REVOCATION + allow-list; REVOCATION_NOT_CONFIGURED otherwise). 'offline': embed the caller-supplied DER material, zero network.	online
`pdfBase64`	Yes	Base64-encoded SIGNED PDF (unencrypted). Sign with sign_pdf (profile=pades recommended) first.
`outputMode`	No	'base64' (default) returns the PDF inline; 'file' writes it inside the PDFNATIVE_MCP_OUTPUT_DIR sandbox (SECURITY_VIOLATION when the sandbox is not configured).	base64
`outputPath`	No	Relative path inside PDFNATIVE_MCP_OUTPUT_DIR (required when outputMode='file').
`preferOcsp`	No	online: try OCSP before CRL for each certificate (default true).
`crlsDerBase64`	No	offline: DER CertificateList (RFC 5280) blobs to embed in /DSS /CRLs.
`certificatesDerBase64`	No	offline: DER X.509 certificates to embed in /DSS /Certs.
`ocspResponsesDerBase64`	No	offline: DER OCSPResponse (RFC 6960) blobs to embed in /DSS /OCSPs.
`extraCertificatesDerBase64`	No	online: additional DER certificates (intermediates / roots) to complete chains the CMS does not carry.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`mode`	Yes
`summary`	No	Tool-specific summary, when produced.
`filePath`	No	Sandboxed absolute path (file mode).
`sizeBytes`	Yes
`diagnostics`	No	Engine diagnostics (when includeDiagnostics=true).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedv1.6.2Sep 27, 2026

changedOutput schema / properties / diagnostics / description

Previous value: -"PDF/A diagnostics (when includeDiagnostics=true)."New value: +"Engine diagnostics (when includeDiagnostics=true)."

AddedAug 24, 2026

TDQS

A4.8/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations only flag openWorldHint and non-idempotence; the description adds the substantive behavior: incremental update with existing /DSS merged, network gated on PDFNATIVE_MCP_REVOCATION + allow-list with REVOCATION_NOT_CONFIGURED otherwise, and the fact that offline mode performs zero network I/O. These are the operational details an agent needs before invoking.

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?

Dense but front-loaded: the PAdES B-LT action leads, then the ladder, then mode semantics, then constraints. Every sentence carries information, though the heavy parenthetical/env-var stacking makes it harder to scan than it could be.

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

Completeness5/5

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

With an output schema present, return values need not be described, and the description covers what remains: prerequisites, mode selection, network configuration requirements, and failure conditions. Nothing needed to invoke it correctly is missing.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description nonetheless adds value beyond the schema by framing mode 'online'/'offline' as a network-vs-no-network tradeoff with named env vars and by explaining that extraCertificates complete chains the CMS does not carry.

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

Purpose5/5

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

States a specific verb and resource ('embed a Document Security Store (/DSS + per-signature /VRI)') and pins the exact spec level (PAdES B-LT). It also situates itself against siblings by naming the ladder (sign_pdf → add_ltv → timestamp_pdf), so an agent can place it without opening other schemas.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicitly states when to use it (ladder step 3, after signing with profile:'pades', before timestamp_pdf) and when each mode applies: 'online' fetches via the operator revocation provider, 'offline' embeds caller-supplied DER with zero network. Prerequisites are given too: ≥1 signed signature and unencrypted PDFs only.

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