MCP PDF Forms

Server Quality Checklist

Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

Latest release: v1.0.0
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose with no ambiguity. extract_form_fields handles form-specific metadata, extract_text retrieves raw text, highlight_form_field visually marks form fields, list_pdfs enumerates files, render_pdf_page generates page images, and search_text performs pattern matching. The descriptions reinforce these unique roles, making tool selection straightforward.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with snake_case, such as extract_form_fields, highlight_form_field, and render_pdf_page. The naming is predictable and readable throughout, with no deviations or mixed conventions, enhancing clarity and usability.
Tool Count5/5
With 6 tools, the server is well-scoped for PDF form and content processing. Each tool earns its place by covering distinct aspects like extraction, rendering, listing, and searching, without being overly sparse or bloated. This count aligns well with the domain's typical operations.
Completeness4/5
The tool set provides strong coverage for PDF form and text operations, including extraction, rendering, listing, and searching. A minor gap exists in form field modification (e.g., fill_form or update_form_field), but agents can work around this by using other tools or external methods. Core workflows are well-supported.
Average 3.7/5 across 6 of 6 tools scored. Lowest: 2.9/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 0 commits in the last 12 weeks
- No stable releases found
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI status not available
This repository is licensed under MIT License.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states what the tool does but doesn't describe important behaviors: whether it works with encrypted PDFs, what happens with malformed PDFs, if there are size limitations, what 'properties' are included in the return dictionary, or error conditions. The description is minimal and lacks operational context.
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?
The description is perfectly concise and well-structured: a clear purpose statement followed by Args and Returns sections. Every sentence earns its place - the purpose is front-loaded, and the parameter/return information is efficiently presented without redundancy. No wasted words.
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?
Given no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'properties' are included in the return dictionary, how nested form fields are handled, what happens with empty forms, or error scenarios. For a tool that extracts structured data from PDFs, more context about the output format and limitations is needed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds the meaning of 'pdf_path' as 'Path to the PDF file', which provides basic semantics beyond the schema's title 'Pdf Path'. However, it doesn't elaborate on path format (absolute/relative), supported file systems, or expected PDF characteristics. With only one parameter, this is adequate but not comprehensive.
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 clearly states the tool's purpose as 'Extract all form fields from a PDF' - a specific verb ('extract') and resource ('form fields from a PDF'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'extract_text' (extracts text content) and 'highlight_form_field' (highlights specific fields). However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with 'list_pdfs' or 'render_pdf_page', keeping it from a perfect 5.
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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention when to choose 'extract_form_fields' over 'extract_text' for form-specific extraction, or when to use 'highlight_form_field' for individual field operations. There's no context about prerequisites or typical use cases.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'configured base paths' which hints at setup requirements, but doesn't describe what happens if no paths are configured, whether the operation is read-only (implied by 'List'), error conditions, or return format details beyond 'List of PDF paths'. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.
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?
The description is extremely concise and well-structured: a clear purpose statement followed by dedicated 'Args' and 'Returns' sections. Every sentence earns its place, with no redundant information. The formatting enhances readability for an AI agent.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's low complexity (one optional parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose, parameter meaning, and return type. However, it lacks important context like error handling, what 'configured base paths' means, or whether the list is paginated/limited. For a simple list operation, this is borderline complete.
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?
The description adds meaningful context for the single parameter: 'Optional string to filter PDF paths' explains what 'path_filter' does beyond the schema's title 'Path Filter'. With 0% schema description coverage, this compensates well by clarifying the parameter's purpose and optionality. However, it doesn't specify filter syntax or examples.
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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'List PDF files in configured base paths' - a specific verb ('List') and resource ('PDF files') with scope ('in configured base paths'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'extract_text' or 'render_pdf_page' by focusing on listing rather than content extraction or rendering. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from potential sibling list operations (though none exist in this server).
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing configured base paths), when this tool is appropriate versus other PDF operations, or any limitations. The agent must infer usage from the purpose alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions that the tool generates an image without highlighting, which is useful, but it doesn't cover other important aspects such as performance characteristics (e.g., processing time, memory usage), error handling (e.g., what happens if the PDF path is invalid or page_num is out of range), or output format details (e.g., image type, size). This leaves gaps in understanding how the tool behaves beyond its basic function.
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?
The description is well-structured and concise, with a clear purpose statement followed by 'Args:' and 'Returns:' sections that efficiently list parameters and output. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information without redundancy, making it easy to scan and understand quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's moderate complexity (3 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is partially complete. It covers the purpose and parameters well, but it lacks details on behavioral aspects like error handling or performance, and without an output schema, it doesn't fully explain the return value (e.g., image format or encoding). This makes it adequate but with clear gaps for effective tool invocation.
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?
The schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It provides clear semantics for all three parameters: 'pdf_path' as the path to the PDF file, 'page_num' as the 0-indexed page number to render, and 'zoom' as a factor for rendering quality. This adds meaningful context beyond the schema's basic titles and types, effectively documenting the parameters despite the low schema coverage.
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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Generate an image of a PDF page without any highlighting.' It specifies the verb ('generate'), resource ('image of a PDF page'), and a key constraint ('without any highlighting'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'highlight_form_field'. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other rendering or extraction tools beyond the highlighting aspect.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage by specifying what the tool does (generate an image without highlighting), which suggests it should be used when a visual representation of a PDF page is needed without annotations. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'extract_text' for text content or 'list_pdfs' for file listings, and it doesn't mention any prerequisites or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions the action (generate image with red box highlight) but lacks details on behavioral traits such as error handling (e.g., if the field doesn't exist), performance (e.g., processing time), or side effects (e.g., whether the original PDF is modified). The description is minimal and does not compensate for the absence of annotations.
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?
The description is appropriately sized and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core purpose clearly, followed by brief, structured sections for Args and Returns. Every sentence earns its place with no redundant information, making it efficient and easy to parse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (a tool with 2 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema), the description is adequate but has gaps. It covers the basic purpose and parameters but lacks behavioral context (e.g., error cases, output format details like image type). Without an output schema, it should ideally explain more about the return value, but it only states 'Image of the page with the field highlighted', which is minimal.
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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning by explaining that pdf_path is the 'Path to the PDF file' and field_name is the 'Name of the form field to highlight', which clarifies the purpose beyond the schema's basic titles. However, it does not provide format details (e.g., file path conventions, field name syntax), keeping it from a perfect score.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the specific action ('Generate an image with the specified form field highlighted with a red box'), identifies the resource (form field in a PDF), and distinguishes from siblings like extract_form_fields (which extracts data) or render_pdf_page (which renders without highlighting). It uses precise verbs and specifies the visual outcome.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage when highlighting a specific form field is needed, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like render_pdf_page (for general rendering) or extract_form_fields (for data extraction). No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned, leaving usage context somewhat inferred rather than clearly defined.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes key behaviors: it searches using regular expressions, supports case sensitivity, allows page range specification, and returns matches with context. However, it lacks details on error handling, performance limits, or file size constraints.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured with a clear purpose statement followed by parameter and return sections. Every sentence adds value, though it could be slightly more concise by integrating the return explanation into the purpose statement. No wasted text is present.
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?
Given the tool's moderate complexity (5 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is largely complete. It covers purpose, parameters, and returns adequately. However, it lacks output format details (e.g., structure of 'List of matches') and error scenarios, leaving minor gaps for an AI agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds significant meaning beyond the schema by explaining each parameter's purpose, defaults, and behavior (e.g., '0-indexed', 'If None, searches all pages'), which is crucial for correct usage. This fully compensates for the lack of schema descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Search') and resource ('text pattern in a PDF file'), distinguishing it from siblings like extract_text (extracts all text) or list_pdfs (lists files). It precisely defines what the tool does without being vague or tautological.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage through parameter explanations (e.g., 'If None, starts from first page'), but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like extract_text for full text extraction or highlight_form_field for form interactions. No explicit exclusions or named alternatives are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and does well by detailing the return behavior (single page vs. multiple pages output format). It clarifies the 0-indexed page numbering and default behaviors for start_page and end_page, adding valuable context beyond basic functionality.
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?
The description is front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by well-structured sections for Args and Returns. Each sentence adds essential information without redundancy, making it efficient and easy to parse.
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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is quite complete, covering purpose, parameters, and return values. However, it lacks details on potential errors (e.g., invalid file paths, unsupported PDF formats) or performance considerations, leaving minor gaps in full contextual understanding.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate fully. It provides detailed semantics for all three parameters: pdf_path as the file path, start_page and end_page with 0-indexing, defaults, and inclusive/exclusive logic, effectively documenting what the schema lacks.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'extract' and resource 'text from PDF pages', making the purpose specific and unambiguous. It distinguishes from siblings like extract_form_fields (which extracts form data) and search_text (which searches within text), establishing clear differentiation.
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?
The description implies usage for text extraction from PDFs, with parameters defining page ranges. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like extract_form_fields for form data or render_pdf_page for visual rendering, leaving some ambiguity in sibling tool selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![mcp_pdf_forms MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/Wildebeest/mcp_pdf_forms/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/Wildebeest/mcp_pdf_forms)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![mcp_pdf_forms MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/Wildebeest/mcp_pdf_forms/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/Wildebeest/mcp_pdf_forms)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/Wildebeest/mcp_pdf_forms'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server