Skip to main content
Glama
Nizoka

pdfnative-mcp

Draft a governance-compliant GitHub issue (HITL)

draft_governance_issue
Read-onlyIdempotent

Draft a governance-compliant GitHub issue with a structured compliance report, validating against zero-dependency and reproduction policies to ensure human oversight before submission.

Instructions

Produce a LOCAL, governance-compliant GitHub issue draft plus a structured compliance report — and NEVER submit anything. This is the MCP-native embodiment of the pdfnative AI-governance / Human-In-The-Loop contract (.github/ai-governance.json, .github/AGENT_RULES.md): the agent is a DRAFTSMAN, the human is the only gate. The server makes NO outbound network call and has NO GitHub write path. The assembled draft is validated against the zero-dependency + reproduction policy; a violation (proposing a runtime dependency, missing reproduction, or duplicateSearchPerformed=false) throws GOVERNANCE_VIOLATION so the human must fix it before submitting under their own identity. Returns the draft markdown inline by default; outputMode='file' also writes a .md to the sandbox. After calling this, present BOTH the draft and the compliance report to the user, then STOP.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
titleYesConcise issue title (imperative, no trailing period).
summaryYesOne or two paragraphs describing the problem or proposal.
issueTypeYesIssue category: 'bug' | 'feature' | 'security' | 'docs' | 'performance'.
outputModeNo'inline' (default) returns the draft markdown in the response. 'file' additionally writes it to the sandbox (requires PDFNATIVE_MCP_OUTPUT_DIR); outputPath must be a relative .md path.inline
outputPathNoRelative .md path inside the sandbox (only when outputMode='file').
targetRepoNoDestination repository label for the draft (documentation only — the server never contacts it). Typically 'pdfnative-mcp' or 'pdfnative'.pdfnative-mcp
reproductionYesThe minimal, locally-executed reproduction that justifies this issue.
actualBehaviorNoWhat actually happened (defaults to the reproduction result when omitted).
affectedPackagesNoPackages impacted by this issue (e.g. ["pdfnative-mcp"], ["pdfnative"]).
expectedBehaviorYesWhat you expected to happen instead.
duplicateSearchPerformedYesMUST be true: confirms you searched open AND closed issues/PRs for duplicates before drafting.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
titleYes
filePathNoSandboxed absolute path (when outputMode='file').
warningsYes
issueTypeYes
sizeBytesYes
complianceYes
outputModeYes
targetRepoYes
draftMarkdownYesThe full draft, ready for a human to review and submit.
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds critical context: no outbound calls, no GitHub write path, throws GOVERNANCE_VIOLATION for policy violations, and the agent is a draftsman only. This goes well beyond the annotations.

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?

The description is thorough but not overly verbose. Every sentence adds unique information, starting with the core purpose and then detailing behavior, governance context, and output modes. It is well-structured, though a bit lengthy.

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?

Given 11 parameters (6 required), nested objects, and an output schema, the description covers all necessary context: what the tool does, what it avoids, governance compliance, output modes, and post-call instructions. It leaves no ambiguity.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining parameter constraints (e.g., title imperative, no period; summary one or two paragraphs; duplicateSearchPerformed must be true; reproduction format). This exceeds mere schema repetition.

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?

The description clearly states the tool produces a draft issue and a compliance report, with explicit verbs 'Produce' and 'NEVER submit anything'. It distinguishes itself from sibling PDF tools by being the only governance issue drafting tool.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description provides explicit instructions: the agent drafts, the human gates; present draft and report then stop. It mentions governance rules but does not explicitly name alternative tools for similar tasks, though siblings are all PDF-related.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/Nizoka/pdfnative-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server