falzmarke

brief_pruefen

Measures an existing PDF against DIN 5008 fold-mark positions and form-specific page dimensions to detect misplaced fold marks before printing.

Instructions

Misst ein bestehendes PDF nach — auch eines, das falzmarke nie gesehen hat.

Entweder pdf_pfad oder pdf_base64. Ohne form wird sie aus den Falzmarken abgeleitet: Form A faltet bei 87 und 192 mm, Form B bei 105 und 210.

Eine Urkunde von falzmarke weist sich im PDF aus und wird ohne form nach ihrer eigenen Liste gemessen. Mit form gilt die Liste des Briefes — auch gegen das, was die Datei von sich behauptet.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "brief_pruefen"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`form`	No
`pdf_pfad`	No
`pdf_base64`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.11.2Nov 6, 2026

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses fold-mark inference and form precedence over embedded metadata, but it does not state that the operation is read-only, what it returns, or how invalid PDFs are handled.

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 purpose is front-loaded and the remaining sentences focus on source selection and form resolution. The wording is reasonably compact, though one sentence about self-identifying documents is a little dense.

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?

For a three-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers input and form logic well. It leaves a meaningful gap around output and error behavior, which matters because there is no output schema to carry that information.

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, and it does explain all three parameters: path or base64 input, optional form, and fold-mark-derived form behavior. It still lacks exact constraints such as whether both input sources may be supplied at once.

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 states a specific verb and resource: measuring/checking an existing PDF. It is clearly not the same as rendering or email-setting siblings, though it does not explicitly name those alternatives.

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?

It explains the input choice between pdf_pfad and pdf_base64, and when form is omitted versus supplied. However, it does not explicitly say when to use this tool rather than a sibling, nor does it state when not to use it.

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

Deploy Server