verify_pdfChecks whether a local signed PDF has an intact seal, when it was sealed, and who signed it, without storing the file or requiring an API key.
Checks a local signed PDF: is the seal intact, when was it sealed, who signed. Works for any PDF; nothing is stored. No API key needed.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| file | Yes | Local path of the PDF |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds genuinely useful context beyond that — nothing is stored and no API key is required, which matters for a tool that reads a local file. It stops short of describing output format, but the enumerated checks partly cover that.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with a colon-delimited list of what is checked, followed by two short constraint clauses. Every clause adds information; nothing is redundant.
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 one-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description covers the operation, the input nature (local path), and the key results (seal status, timestamp, signer). What an agent needs to invoke it correctly is present, though the shape of the return value is only sketched.
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?
One parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already documents that 'file' is a local path. The description reinforces that the target is a local signed PDF but adds no format or path-syntax detail beyond the schema, making the baseline 3 appropriate.
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?
States a specific verb ('Checks') and resource ('local signed PDF') and enumerates the exact questions answered: seal integrity, sealing time, signer identity. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like download_signed_pdf or get_document.
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?
'Works for any PDF' and 'No API key needed' imply broad applicability and low setup friction, but the description never says when to reach for this versus siblings (e.g., after download_signed_pdf, or instead of get_document). Usage is implied rather than directed.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.