pdf_infoRetrieve a PDF's page count, page sizes, form fields, and document properties by providing its file path.
Page count, page sizes, form fields and document properties of a PDF.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| input | Yes | Path to a PDF inside an allowed folder (absolute, or relative to the first allowed folder). |
| 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 readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description contributes only the shape of the returned information, which is also partly covered by the output schema, so it adds limited value beyond 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?
A single front-loaded noun phrase with zero filler. It is efficient, though its telegraphic style omits a verb and reads as a field list rather than a complete statement of capability.
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?
With an output schema present and annotations covering safety, the description only needs to convey scope, which it does adequately for a one-parameter read tool. Nothing critical is missing, though a hint about when to reach for it over sibling inspection tools would round it out.
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?
There is a single parameter ('input', a PDF path) and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents it. The description adds nothing about the input path or its resolution rules, so the baseline 3 applies.
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?
The description names the specific resource (a PDF) and enumerates what is reported: page count, page sizes, form fields, and document properties. This distinguishes it from siblings like pdf_read_text or pdf_extract_tables, though it lacks an explicit verb (the title's 'Inspect' carries that load).
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?
No guidance on when to use this versus alternatives such as pdf_read_text, pdf_extract_structure, or pdf_outline. An agent can infer it is a pre-flight inspection step, but the description states no conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.