read_pdf_sectionExtract text and statistical data from academic PDFs for review and auditing, with optional selection of specific pages or page ranges.
Extrai o texto e dados estatísticos de um PDF acadêmico para fins de revisão e auditoria. Permite selecionar páginas específicas ou intervalos (1-indexado).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| pages | No | ||
| end_page | No | ||
| pdf_path | Yes | ||
| start_page | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description carries the burden. 'Extrai' implies a read-only extraction, and the 1-indexed page selection is disclosed, but nothing is said about missing-file behavior, performance on large PDFs, or what 'dados estatísticos' concretely means. The output schema covers return values, lowering the bar.
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?
Two sentences, front-loaded with the purpose before the page-selection detail. Almost no waste, though 'dados estatísticos' is vague enough to dilute the first sentence slightly.
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?
The presence of an output schema removes the need to explain returns, and the description covers purpose and page selection. It stops short of differentiating from the many sibling audit/structure tools an agent must choose between, which is the key gap given this crowded toolset.
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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains that pages can be specific pages or ranges and that indexing is 1-based, covering pdf_path, pages, start_page, and end_page implicitly. It does not clarify whether the pages array is mutually exclusive with start/end range, leaving a real ambiguity.
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 states a specific verb and resource ('Extrai o texto e dados estatísticos de um PDF acadêmico'), which is clear. It distinguishes itself somewhat from siblings like audit_illustrations_and_tables by focusing on text/statistical extraction, though it does not name any sibling explicitly.
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 phrase 'para fins de revisão e auditoria' gives an implied context, and page selection is described. However, it never states when to prefer this over siblings such as check_structure or audit_illustrations_and_tables, leaving the routing decision to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.