pdf-rescue-mcp

by albertm88

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Python

检查PDF文本层

inspect_pdf_text_layer

Check if a PDF has a complete usable text layer, identifying scanned, mixed, corrupted, or password-protected files.

Instructions

判断PDF是否已经包含完整可用文本层，识别扫描、混合、损坏和密码保护PDF。

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": {
      "path": "<path>"
    },
    "name": "inspect_pdf_text_layer"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`path`	Yes
`password`	No
`max_pages`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Aug 2, 2026

TDQS

C2.7/5.0

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 does not state whether the operation is read-only, whether it modifies the PDF, what happens with password-protected files, or any side effects. The verb 'inspect' implies read-only, but this is not explicitly disclosed. It also fails to mention potential errors or limitations.

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 a single, compact sentence that conveys the core purpose without wasted words. It is front-loaded and appropriately sized for the tool's function, earning high marks for efficiency.

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?

While the output schema exists and covers return values, the description is too sparse for a tool with three parameters and no parameter documentation. It does not explain how password and max_pages affect the inspection, what constitutes a 'complete usable text layer', or when to use the tool. This makes the tool incomplete for an agent to use 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?

The schema has no parameter descriptions (coverage 0%), and the description provides no explanation of the 'path', 'password', or 'max_pages' parameters. The description does not compensate for the lack of schema metadata, leaving the agent with no understanding of what each parameter means or how they affect behavior.

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: to determine whether a PDF contains a complete usable text layer and to identify scanned, mixed, damaged, and password-protected PDFs. It uses a specific verb ('inspect') and a clear resource (PDF text layer), and the scope is distinct enough from sibling tools, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like 'diagnose_pdf'.

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 does not mention prerequisites, when this inspection is appropriate, or which sibling tools to use instead in other scenarios. This leaves the agent without context for selecting this tool over similar ones.

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