Skip to main content
Glama
PurpleDirective

quillpdf-mcp

by PurpleDirective
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Local

Split / extract PDF pages

pdf_split
Idempotent

Split a PDF into multiple files using 1-based page ranges, or extract specific pages into one PDF. All processing happens locally on your machine.

Instructions

Split a PDF by 1-based page ranges (one output file per comma group, e.g. "1-3,5"), or extract specific pages into a single PDF (e.g. "1,3,5"). Provide exactly one of ranges or pages. Runs entirely on this machine — the file is read and written locally and never sent anywhere.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
forceNoReplace the output file if it already exists (default: refuse, so existing files are never silently clobbered)
inputYesPath to the input PDF
pagesNo1-based pages for a single combined output, e.g. "1,3,5"
outputYesOutput path. In range mode with >1 group, files get -1, -2, … suffixes.
rangesNo1-based ranges, one output per comma group, e.g. "1-3,5,7-9"

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv0.2.0
    • addedInput schema / properties / force
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Replace the output file if it already exists (default: refuse, so existing files are never silently clobbered)",
+  "type": "boolean"
+}
  2. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare non-read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, so the description only needs to add context. It does: it discloses that processing runs entirely on the local machine and the file is never transmitted, which is meaningful privacy information not present in the annotations or schema. It does not cover error behavior for invalid ranges.

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 dense sentences, front-loaded with the core split/extract distinction, followed by the mutual-exclusivity constraint and the local-processing guarantee. Every clause carries information; no filler.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a 5-parameter local file tool with no output schema, the description covers both operation modes, parameter exclusivity, output naming, and the privacy guarantee. Remaining gaps are minor: no mention of behavior on invalid/out-of-range pages or overlap with `force`, though the latter is documented in the schema.

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 the baseline is 3, but the description adds real value the schema lacks: it states that exactly one of `ranges` or `pages` must be provided (the schema marks both optional with no mutual-exclusion constraint) and clarifies the output-file-per-group semantics, complementing the suffix note in the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description names a specific verb and resource ('Split a PDF', 'extract specific pages into a single PDF') and clearly distinguishes its own two modes. It does not, however, differentiate itself from close siblings like pdf_delete_pages or pdf_organize, which an agent may also consider for page-level manipulation.

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?

It gives an explicit selection rule for the two modes: use `ranges` for one output per comma group and `pages` for a single combined output, with concrete examples. What's missing is guidance relative to sibling tools (e.g., when to use split vs. delete_pages or organize).

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