Uploads the original document to TextIn for parsing a specified page range (up to 100 pages per batch), reusing existing jobs for the same version and range.
按项目授权向TextIn上传原件并解析指定页范围；每批最多100页。页范围只限制处理，上传的是整个文件。相同版本和范围复用原任务，包括失败/未知提交。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| end_page | No | ||
| start_page | No | ||
| version_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare openWorldHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is partly covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: the entire file is uploaded even when only a page range is processed, and identical version+range reuses the original task including failed/unknown submissions (idempotent caching).
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?
Three compact sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by the constraints and reuse rule. Dense but nearly every clause carries distinct information; no filler.
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?
No output schema exists, so the description should signal what happens next, and the reuse-of-task behavior partially does. It still never indicates whether a job is created that must be polled (get_parse_job/retry_parse siblings suggest async), which is the main remaining gap for a parsing tool.
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?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description must carry parameter meaning, and it does clarify that start/end page restrict processing only (not upload) and that version+range jointly identify a reusable task. It does not explain where version_id comes from or its relation to import/reference records, leaving one gap.
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 names a specific verb+resource and mechanism: it uploads the original file to TextIn and parses a specified page range. This implicitly separates it from parse_local_pdf, though no sibling is named explicitly, so it stops short of a 5.
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?
It gives operational context (max 100 pages per batch, page range only limits processing, whole file is uploaded) and idempotency behavior, which helps an agent decide how to call it. However, it never states when to choose this over parse_local_pdf, get_parse_job, or retry_parse, so when-versus-alternative guidance is only implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.