lsth-mcp

techpack_parse

Extract style entities from tech pack PDFs to structure design data for downstream use.

Instructions

S1 — bóc tech pack PDF ra thực thể Style.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "file": "<file>"
    },
    "name": "techpack_parse"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`file`	Yes
`max_pages`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Sep 9, 2026

TDQS

C2.4/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It states that parsing occurs from a PDF to a Style entity, but does not mention error behavior, required file access, page-limit semantics, or any side effects/assumptions.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is very short and contains no filler, but it is under-specified. The 'S1 —' prefix adds little value and the brevity comes at the cost of missing important guidance.

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

Completeness2/5

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

Even with an output schema present, the description omits parameter semantics, usage context, and relationship to sibling parsing/extraction tools. For a 2-parameter tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient for an agent to confidently select and invoke it correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters1/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not mention either parameter ('file' or 'max_pages'). The agent gains no additional meaning beyond the bare schema types, so it cannot infer how the file should be provided or how max_pages affects parsing.

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 uses a specific verb 'bóc' (parse/extract), names the resource 'tech pack PDF', and specifies the output entity 'Style'. This makes the core action and target clear, though it does not explicitly distinguish it from sibling tools like bom_extract or bom_diff.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives. It only states what the tool does, with no mention of file types, prerequisites, or scenarios where another tool should be preferred.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server