Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
okular-mcp

okular-mcp

by david-wang-0
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

PDF: table of contents

outline
Read-only

Retrieve a PDF's table of contents and bookmark tree with section page numbers to map and navigate the document.

Instructions

The document's table of contents.

The document's bookmark tree (sections with page numbers), a map of the paper.

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": "outline"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pathNo

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

C2.7/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds almost nothing behavioral beyond that – it doesn't say what happens when a document has no bookmarks, whether output nests, or pagination/limits. The mention of 'sections with page numbers' is content, not behavior.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

It is short and front-loaded, but the second sentence largely repeats the first ('table of contents' vs 'bookmark tree... a map of the paper'), so it is somewhat redundant rather than tightly informative.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the tool is a simple read. Still, for a tool with an undocumented parameter and no edge-case behavior, the description leaves gaps that an agent would need to guess at.

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?

The single `path` parameter has 0% schema description coverage and is never mentioned in the description. The phrase 'The document's' weakly implies a current/default document, but it does not explain what path selects or that omitting it uses the active document.

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 resource ('table of contents' / 'bookmark tree (sections with page numbers)') that an agent can distinguish from read-only siblings like page_text, links, or annotations. It lacks a clear verb and slightly restates the title, but the resource is unambiguous.

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?

There is no when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative guidance. Nothing routes the agent between outline, page_text, links, or context, so the agent must infer usage from the purpose alone.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools