List locally available OCR engines for PDF2Text. Shows which engines are installed so you can pick one before extracting text or Markdown from PDFs and images.
List locally available engines. auto prefers Apple Vision, then PaddleOCR.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| 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?
Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond them: the listing is restricted to locally available engines, and the "auto" selection order (Apple Vision, then PaddleOCR) is disclosed, which the agent could not learn from structured fields.
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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by the one piece of extra value. Nothing is repeated from the schema or annotations and no sentence is 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?
An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the closed scope (local engines only) plus the auto-resolution rule cover the essentials for a trivial zero-param list tool. The only missing piece is an explicit note that these engine names are what extract_text accepts.
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?
The tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description's only parameter-like content (the "auto" preference order) actually describes a value consumed by a different tool, so it neither helps nor hurts this tool's own (empty) parameter set.
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 + resource ("List locally available engines"), which is unambiguous on its own and clearly not an extraction operation like its sibling extract_text. However, it never names or contrasts with the sibling, so separation relies on the reader inferring that listing precedes extracting.
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?
There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use statement and no routing to an alternative. Usage is only implied: the mention of "auto" and engine names hints that this is the discovery step before choosing an engine for extract_text, but the agent has to infer that workflow.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.