Skip to main content
Glama
O-mega-Enterprise

suprsonic-mcp

by O-mega-Enterprise
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

file-convert

Convert documents, web pages, spreadsheets, and images between formats like PDF, DOCX, XLSX, HTML, and JPG. Provide a source URL and format to get the target format.

Instructions

Convert documents, web pages, spreadsheets and images between formats. Cost: 2 credits.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
file_urlYesURL of the file to convert (for source_format web, the page itself).
source_formatYesFormat of the file: pdf, docx, pptx, xlsx, csv, html, web (a page, from its HTML without JavaScript), txt, epub, svg, png, jpg, webp, gif, bmp, tiff or heic.
target_formatNoFormat to convert to. The conversion table's pairs convert in-house; other pairs go to ConvertAPI.pdf

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed3 schema fields changedv0.3.1
    • changedInput schema / properties / file_url / description
      Previous value: -"URL to source file"New value: +"URL of the file to convert (for source_format web, the page itself)."
    • changedInput schema / properties / source_format / description
      Previous value: -"Source format (e.g. docx, xlsx, html)"New value: +"Format of the file: pdf, docx, pptx, xlsx, csv, html, web (a page, from its HTML without JavaScript), txt, epub, svg, png, jpg, webp, gif, bmp, tiff or heic."
    • changedInput schema / properties / target_format / description
      Previous value: -"Target format"New value: +"Format to convert to. The conversion table's pairs convert in-house; other pairs go to ConvertAPI."
  2. First observedv0.3.0

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose a genuine behavioral trait, the 2-credit cost, but says nothing about limits, async behavior, error handling for unsupported pairs, or auth requirements.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two short sentences with zero filler; the capability statement is front-loaded and the cost caveat follows. Every sentence earns its place.

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

Completeness3/5

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

For a 3-parameter conversion tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description conveys capability and cost but omits return shape, size/rate limits, and failure modes for conversion pairs that fall outside the in-house table.

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

Parameters3/5

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 file_url, source_format (with its full format list) and target_format. The description adds no format syntax, URL requirements, or default-behavior detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 (Convert) and enumerates the resource classes it handles (documents, web pages, spreadsheets, images). No sibling tool overlaps this function, so an agent can route to it unambiguously.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

The description contains no when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative-tool guidance. It does surface the 2-credit cost, which is a decision factor, but there is no explicit condition for selecting this tool.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools