Doc2x MCP Server

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It mentions 'latest export result' suggesting it retrieves data (read operation) and that uid 'may contain an escaped URL', adding some context. But it doesn't disclose behavioral traits like error handling, rate limits, authentication needs, or what 'result' entails (e.g., format, size).

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, efficient sentence with zero waste—front-loaded with the core action ('Get'), specifies the resource and constraint, and includes a helpful note about the uid. Every word earns its place.

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?

Given 1 parameter with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It clarifies the tool's purpose and uid source, but as a read operation with no annotations, it should ideally explain more about the result (e.g., what data is returned) to compensate for the lack of output schema.

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 schema already documents the uid parameter fully. The description adds marginal value by noting the uid 'may contain an escaped URL', but doesn't provide additional syntax or format details beyond the schema's description. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 clearly states the verb 'Get' and the resource 'latest export (convert) result', specifying it's for a parsed PDF uid. It distinguishes from siblings like doc2x_convert_export_submit (which submits) and doc2x_convert_export_wait (which waits), but doesn't explicitly contrast with status-checking tools like doc2x_parse_pdf_status.

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?

The description implies usage after a parse task (uid from doc2x_parse_pdf_submit) and for getting results, not submitting or waiting. However, it lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance or clear alternatives among siblings (e.g., vs. doc2x_parse_pdf_status for parse status).

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