Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
io.github.Xvvln/pdf-reader-mcp

io.github.Xvvln/pdf-reader-mcp

by Xvvln
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

compare_pdf_pages

Compare text differences between two PDF pages, showing similarity, common lines, and unique lines per page.

Instructions

比较PDF中两个页面的文本差异。

Args: file_path: PDF文件的完整路径 page1: 第一个页码（从1开始） page2: 第二个页码（从1开始）

Returns: 包含以下信息的字典: - page1_chars: 第一页字符数 - page2_chars: 第二页字符数 - common_lines: 相同的行数 - page1_unique_lines: 仅在第一页出现的行数 - page2_unique_lines: 仅在第二页出现的行数 - similarity: 相似度（0-1）

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_path": "<file_path>",
      "page1": "<page1>",
      "page2": "<page2>"
    },
    "name": "compare_pdf_pages"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
page1Yes
page2Yes
file_pathYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.2.1

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries full burden. It explains the return dictionary structure (e.g., similarity score, unique lines) but does not disclose limitations like handling of scanned PDFs or performance characteristics.

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 somewhat verbose with a full Args/Returns block. While well-structured, it could be more concise without losing essential information.

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 complexity (text comparison), the description covers input parameters and return fields, including similarity. However, it lacks details on edge cases (e.g., missing pages) and has no output schema.

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%, but the description adds meaning by explaining each parameter (e.g., file_path as 'full path', page numbers as 1-based). This compensates for the schema gap.

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: comparing text differences between two PDF pages. It uses a specific verb ('compare') and resource ('PDF pages'), differentiating it from sibling tools like get_pdf_page_info or read_pdf_as_text.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives is provided. The description only states the general purpose, lacking context or exclusions for use cases.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools