OCR Beans

check_legibility

Verifies whether a PDF contains corrupted or proprietary fonts by analyzing native text on its first page to determine if OCR is required.

Instructions

Diagnóstico rápido: verifica se um PDF tem fontes corrompidas/proprietárias.

Não faz OCR — apenas analisa o texto nativo da primeira página para determinar
se o documento precisará de OCR. Operação rápida (< 1 segundo).

Args:
    pdf_path: Caminho absoluto do arquivo PDF.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`pdf_path`	Yes

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv2.0.0Oct 16, 2026

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose meaningful traits: it performs no OCR, analyzes only the native text of the FIRST page (a real scope limitation), and runs in under one second. It omits whether it mutates anything or requires special permissions, but as a pure read/analysis diagnostic that gap is minor.

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?

Front-loads the purpose, then the key limitation, then performance, then the argument — every sentence earns its place with no redundancy. Structure is clean, though the args block is slightly verbose for a single parameter.

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?

For a one-parameter diagnostic with an output schema (so return values need not be explained), the description covers purpose, scope limitation, performance, and the argument's semantics. Nothing essential to correct invocation is missing, though it could note expected output direction.

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 coverage is 0% and the property is just a bare string, but the description compensates by specifying 'Caminho absoluto do arquivo PDF' — the absolute-path requirement is real semantic value the schema does not provide. One well-explained parameter warrants a 4.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('verifica se um PDF tem fontes corrompidas/proprietárias') and explicitly contrasts itself with the OCR siblings by declaring 'Não faz OCR'. An agent can distinguish this diagnostic tool from ocr_pdf/ocr_page/ocr_image/batch_ocr without opening any schema.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description situates the tool clearly as a pre-OCR diagnostic ('determinar se o documento precisará de OCR'), which tells the agent when it is relevant. However, it never names a specific alternative or states an explicit when-not-to-use rule beyond the implicit 'if you actually need OCR, use a different tool'.

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

Deploy Server