render_markdown_pdfConvert Markdown content into a titled PDF document with an optional filename. Supports text, headings, lists, and tables only; no external HTML.
Convierte Markdown a PDF; solo admite texto, encabezados, listas y tablas, sin HTML externo.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| file_name | No | ||
| document_title | Yes | ||
| markdown_content | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose a real behavioral constraint — the supported Markdown subset and the absence of external HTML support — but says nothing about whether a file is written to disk, where it lands, overwrite behavior, or output format. Output schema exists, so return values are covered elsewhere.
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 no filler: verb and resource first, constraints second. It is arguably too terse rather than verbose, but nothing in it is wasted.
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 output schema excuses the description from explaining return values, but with zero annotation coverage and zero parameter description coverage, three parameters and the tool's side effects are documented nowhere. For a content-conversion tool with siblings, the description is too thin to be complete.
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 description coverage is 0% and none of the three parameters (file_name, document_title, markdown_content) is explained in the description. The description only gestures at the content being Markdown; it adds no meaning about the optional file_name default or how document_title is rendered.
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 and resource (converts Markdown to PDF) and scopes the supported Markdown subset (text, headings, lists, tables). It is clearly a generic renderer, distinct in kind from the specialized siblings like generate_proposal_pdf or generate_quote_pdf, though it never explicitly names that distinction.
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 clause 'sin HTML externo' implicitly tells the agent when not to use this tool (content containing raw HTML), which is genuine usage context. However, it never states when to prefer this generic renderer over the many generate_*_pdf siblings, 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.