Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
okular-mcp

okular-mcp

by david-wang-0
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

PDF: read an attached file

read_attachment
Read-only

Read the text content of a file attached as a PDF annotation by specifying its xref. Decodes the embedded file for viewing.

Instructions

Read an attached file back as text.

Contents of a file-attachment annotation (an xref from annotations with a file field), decoded as text.

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": {
      "xref": "<xref>"
    },
    "name": "read_attachment"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pathNo
xrefYes

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description confirms the read-only, decoded-to-text nature of the operation. It adds the useful detail that the content is decoded as text and that only file-attachment xrefs qualify, but says nothing about failure behavior for invalid/non-file xrefs.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by the precise semantic constraint. No filler, though the second sentence is somewhat dense/jargon-laden.

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-value explanation is unnecessary. For a two-parameter read tool the description covers the key linkage to `annotations`, but the undocumented `path` parameter leaves a gap in what an agent needs to call it correctly.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the burden. It explains the required `xref` well (an xref from `annotations` carrying a `file` field), but the optional `path` parameter is completely unexplained in both schema and description.

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 and resource ('Read an attached file back as text') and pins the scope to file-attachment annotations, which separates it from the generic `annotations` sibling. It does not explicitly contrast with the reverse operation `attach_file`, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: it tells the agent the xref must come from `annotations` with a `file` field, which is a de facto precondition. There is no explicit when-not guidance or named alternative for adding attachments.

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