Copilot Desktop MCP

by avianhermana

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Python

Local

Pdf Split

pdf_split

Split a multi-page PDF into separate single-page PDF files and save them to a specified output directory.

Instructions

Split a multi-page PDF into separate single-page PDF files.

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>",
      "output_dir": "<output_dir>"
    },
    "name": "pdf_split"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`path`	Yes
`output_dir`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Nov 10, 2026

TDQS

C2.7/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden and falls short: it says nothing about output file naming, whether existing files in output_dir are overwritten, whether the directory is created if missing, or what happens with encrypted/damaged PDFs. For a filesystem-writing tool this is a substantial gap.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero redundant wording. It is efficient but so terse that conciseness shades into under-specification given the missing behavioral detail.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, but with no annotations and 0% parameter coverage the definition leaves critical call-time details unstated: output naming convention, directory creation, and overwrite behavior. Not adequate for a tool that writes many files to disk.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0% with two required parameters, so the description must compensate and does not. It never mentions the path or output_dir arguments, their formats, or whether output_dir is created or must pre-exist.

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?

States a specific verb (split) and resource (multi-page PDF into single-page PDFs), which is unambiguous about the transformation performed. It does not explicitly contrast with the sibling pdf_merge, leaving the inverse operation to inference, but the core purpose is unmistakable.

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 when-to-use guidance, no mention of the sibling pdf_merge as the alternative for the opposite operation, and no preconditions such as whether the source must be a PDF or the output directory must exist. The agent is left to infer all selection criteria from the name alone.

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

Deploy Server