PDF Processor Server

Server Quality Checklist

Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

Latest release: v0.1.0
Disambiguation3/5
Most tools have clear, distinct purposes (extract_text vs extract_text_by_page vs extract_metadata), but get_pdf_info and extract_metadata overlap conceptually, and upload_file accepts base64 dicts, making upload_file_base64 redundant. The three upload tools introduce ambiguity about which to use.
Naming Consistency4/5
The majority of tools follow a verb_noun snake_case pattern (e.g., extract_text, merge_pdfs, upload_file). However, server_info lacks a verb, and pdf_to_images/images_to_pdf are noun_to_noun, creating minor inconsistencies in an otherwise predictable naming scheme.
Tool Count4/5
15 tools is at the upper boundary of the ideal 3-15 range, but the coverage of PDF processing operations (extract, merge, split, rotate, convert, upload) justifies the count. A few upload variants could be consolidated, but the overall scale is reasonable for a specialized server.
Completeness4/5
The tool set covers core PDF lifecycle operations well: creation from images, text extraction, metadata, merging, splitting, rotation, and conversion to images. The main gap is the absence of any delete/remove operation for temporary resources, which can leave dead ends in workflows.
Average 3.3/5 across 15 of 15 tools scored. Lowest: 2.4/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 0 commits in the last 12 weeks
- No stable releases found
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI status not available
This repository is licensed under MIT License.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Extract' implies a read-only operation, but the description does not specify what metadata fields are returned, whether the file parameter accepts a path or base64, or any side effects. This is minimal and vague.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is short (one sentence), but it is under-specified rather than concisely effective. It lacks critical information that should accompany a one-sentence description, such as output format or parameter handling. Similar to the 'Process' example, this is over-simplification without substance.
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?
Despite the tool being simple (1 parameter), the description does not provide enough context about what 'comprehensive metadata' includes or how the file input is supplied. While an output schema exists, the absence of any parameter description and annotations leaves the tool incomplete for an agent to invoke correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0% and the only parameter 'file' has no type or description in the input schema. The description 'PDF metadata' does not explain how the file should be provided (e.g., local path, URL, base64), nor does it add any parameter-level semantics. This is a critical gap.
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 'Extract comprehensive PDF metadata' clearly states the action (extract) and resource (PDF metadata), and uses 'comprehensive' to suggest thoroughness. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling tool 'get_pdf_info', which likely serves a similar purpose, so it falls 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 Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_pdf_info or extract_text. The description does not mention prerequisites, target users, or scenarios, leaving the agent to infer usage solely from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the conversion action but fails to mention side effects such as whether output files are overwritten, whether output_dir is created if missing, or how pages are selected and named.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, which is concise, but it is under-specified rather than effectively concise. It provides only the core function without adding any useful detail, making it insufficient for a tool with five parameters.
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?
The tool has 5 parameters and no annotations, and although an output schema exists, the description lacks critical context about page selection, format options, and output behavior. It is not complete enough for a tool of this complexity, even considering the output schema.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description gives no explanation of the parameters (dpi, pages, format, file_path, output_dir). Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not compensate, leaving the agent without any semantic understanding of these options beyond their names and defaults.
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 clearly states the tool converts PDF pages to image files, using a specific verb and resource. It is distinguishable from sibling tools like extract_text or images_to_pdf, though it lacks detail on scope (e.g., all pages vs selected pages).
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, use cases, or situations where another sibling tool (e.g., images_to_pdf for reverse conversion) would be more appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the basic creation action without mentioning whether output_path is overwritten, required permissions, file format constraints, or any side effects. This is insufficient for a tool that writes to disk, similar to the 'update_drive' example that received a 2.
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 description is a single concise sentence with no wasted words. It efficiently states the core purpose, though it skips other needed details. This is appropriately compact for the amount of information it provides, though not as informative as it could be.
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?
Despite the tool having 4 parameters and an output schema, the description covers only the basic conversion concept. It omits crucial context such as accepted image formats, default page_size and orientation, behavior when output_path exists, and any return values. The output schema exists but the description still lacks sufficient detail for correct invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, yet the description adds no information about any of the four parameters (image_paths, output_path, page_size, orientation). It fails to explain valid values, defaults, or relationships, leaving the agent to rely solely on parameter names, which is not enough given the 0% coverage.
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 'Create PDF from multiple image files' clearly identifies the tool's function with a specific verb ('Create') and resource ('PDF'), plus the input source ('multiple image files'). This distinguishes it from siblings like merge_pdfs (combines existing PDFs) and pdf_to_images (converts PDFs to images), though it does not explicitly name alternatives.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or conditions such as 'use this when you have image files rather than PDFs'. The usage is only implied by the phrase 'from multiple image files', with no explicit context or alternative comparisons.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does not disclose whether the original file is modified or a new file is created, despite an output_path parameter. It also doesn't mention permissions, reversibility, or side effects. The single sentence provides no behavioral context beyond the basic action.
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?
The description is a single concise sentence with no wasted words. However, given the tool's parameter complexity, it is under-specified rather than efficiently concise. It would benefit from brief parameter context without being verbose.
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?
The description is minimal, with no output behavior, side effects, or parameter details. The output schema is undefined, and the tool's complexity in the rotations parameter is unaddressed. Overall, it lacks the context needed for an agent to invoke it correctly.
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%, and the description does not explain parameter meanings. The 'rotations' parameter is an array of objects with integer values, but the description doesn't clarify the expected structure (e.g., page-to-angle mapping). The parameter names are partly self-explanatory, but the complex rotations structure is left ambiguous.
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?
The description clearly states the tool's function: 'Rotate specific pages in a PDF.' It uses a specific verb (rotate) and resource (pages in a PDF), and distinguishes from sibling tools like split_pdf or merge_pdfs.
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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool vs alternatives. There is no mention of use cases, exclusions, or prerequisites. The sibling tools include other PDF manipulation functions, but the description doesn't help the agent choose.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the merge action but doesn't disclose whether it creates a new file, modifies inputs, requires permissions, or handles bookmarks/metadata. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.
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 description is a single sentence that is efficient and front-loaded. It is appropriately concise for the operation, though it could add more context while remaining focused.
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?
The tool has two required parameters and no annotations; the description fails to explain parameter semantics, file path expectations, or any limitations. While an output schema exists, the description still lacks sufficient context about how to invoke the tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has two parameters with zero schema description coverage. The description does not explain that input_files expects an array of file paths or that output_path is the destination. It only says 'multiple PDF files', which is vague and does not compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.
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?
The description clearly states the verb 'merge' and the resource 'PDF files', with the output being 'one document'. This directly distinguishes it from sibling tools like split_pdf and rotate_pages.
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?
The description implies usage when combining multiple PDFs into a single document, but does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it. No exclusionary guidance is provided, so the usage context is only implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only states what the tool does, without disclosing return format, error behavior, page numbering, or encoding defaults. It does not contradict anything, but provides little behavioral context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, focused sentence that immediately conveys the core purpose. It is front-loaded and contains no filler, making it appropriately concise.
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?
Given 4 parameters, no annotations, and a minimal description, the tool is under-specified. Users are left guessing how to format 'page_range', what 'encoding' does, and how the result is returned, so the description is not complete enough for reliable invocation.
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?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description should compensate for parameter meaning. It only mentions pages/page ranges, giving minimal context for two of the four parameters, while 'encoding' and the exact format of 'page_range' are left unexplained.
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?
The description clearly states the tool extracts text from specific pages or page ranges, using a specific verb and resource. The mention of 'specific pages or page ranges' distinguishes it from the sibling tool 'extract_text', which likely handles whole documents.
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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'extract_text'. The description is purely functional, with no mention of scenarios where this is preferred or any exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that files are saved to the server temp directory, which is useful, but it does not mention overwrite behavior, permissions, error conditions, file lifecycle, or how the operation interacts with temp resource listing. 'Persist' implies a write but lacks depth expected for a mutation-style tool with zero annotation support.
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 description is compact and front-loaded with the core purpose. The bullet list is a clear, scannable way to present accepted input types. Slightly more structure could clarify the relationship between `file` and `filename`, but there is no wasted prose.
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?
For a tool with 0% schema parameter coverage, no annotations, and related sibling tools, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the `filename` parameter, the return value (despite an output schema), or how this tool connects to list_temp_resources and the specialized upload tools. The available information is not sufficient for an agent to confidently use all parameters and choose among siblings.
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 coverage is 0% and the `file` property is untyped ({}) in the schema, so the description is essential. It adds meaningful semantics by enumerating possible `file` values: full path, short filename, bytes/file-like, or base64 dict. However, the optional `filename` parameter is completely unexplained, leaving a gap in parameter understanding.
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 names a specific action ('Persist') and a clear resource ('uploaded file into the server temp directory'). It also lists accepted input forms, which adds precision. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like upload_file_base64 or upload_file_url, despite overlapping capabilities (e.g., base64 dict).
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?
The 'Accepts' bullet list implies usage scenarios (path, temp filename, bytes, base64 dict), giving some context for when to invoke the tool. But there are no explicit exclusions or comparisons with alternative sibling tools, leaving the decision between upload_file, upload_file_base64, and upload_file_url ambiguous.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
There are no annotations, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'split PDF into separate files', implying output as files but gives no details about whether the original is modified, where files are saved, how results are returned, or any side effects. This is minimal and insufficient for a mutation-like operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence that directly states the core function. There is no filler or redundant information; every word contributes to the meaning.
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?
For a tool that splits PDFs by page ranges, the exact format and semantics of split_ranges are critical but omitted. The description also does not mention what happens with invalid ranges, whether ranges are inclusive, how output files are named or returned, or any edge cases. The existence of an output schema does not cover these input semantics, making the description incomplete for reliable invocation.
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?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate. It does clarify that split_ranges refers to 'page ranges', which adds meaning beyond the bare parameter name. However, it does not specify the structure of the ranges (e.g., array of {start,end} objects, inclusiveness, multiple ranges), leaving significant ambiguity for a tool that depends on this precise format.
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?
The description uses a specific verb 'Split' and identifies the resource 'PDF' and the criterion 'by page ranges'. This clearly differentiates the tool from siblings like merge_pdfs (combining) and pdf_to_images (converting to images), making the purpose 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?
The description does not provide any explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It only states the action without mentioning exclusions (e.g., if you need images, use pdf_to_images) or prerequisites, leaving the agent to infer usage 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.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must fully convey behavior. It discloses the key trait 'without processing content', which implies a read-only, fast operation. However, it omits other behavioral details such as error handling, permission requirements, or performance characteristics, making this only partially transparent.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the primary purpose and includes only essential information. Every word contributes value, making it perfectly concise.
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?
Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter) and the presence of an output schema, the description provides sufficient context: it states what the tool does and its key non-behavior. It lacks only a brief mention of common use cases or cost implications, but overall it is complete.
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?
The schema has 0% description coverage for the single parameter file_path. The tool description does not elaborate on this parameter, but the name is self-explanatory and unambiguous, so the lack of additional explanation is acceptable.
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 clearly states the tool gets 'comprehensive PDF information' and specifically notes it does so 'without processing content', which distinguishes it from content-focused siblings like extract_text. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the similar extract_metadata tool, so it falls 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 Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While 'without processing content' implies a use case for quick information retrieval, it does not name alternatives or specify conditions under which this tool is preferred.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It indicates a read operation ('Return base64') and a scope restriction ('temp directory only'), but it does not describe path resolution, error behavior for missing files, or the exact base64 output format. These omissions leave significant behavioral aspects undisclosed.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single clear sentence with no wasted words. It conveys the action, resource, and scope efficiently, making it easy to parse quickly.
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 simple tool with one parameter and an output schema (as signaled), the description covers the essential operation and scope. The missing details about path format and error handling are relatively minor for a getter tool, though they would improve completeness. Overall, it is adequate for basic invocation but not exhaustive.
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?
The schema has no description for the file_path parameter (0% coverage), so the description must compensate. It adds semantic value by stating that the parameter represents a file within the temp directory, which is a meaningful constraint beyond the bare string type. However, it does not clarify whether the path should be relative or absolute, or whether subdirectories are allowed, leaving some ambiguity.
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?
The description clearly states the tool's function: returning base64 for a file, with an explicit scope restriction to the temp directory. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like upload_file_base64 (which uploads) and list_temp_resources (which lists). The verb 'Return' and resource 'base64' are specific and non-tautological.
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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The temp-directory-only constraint provides context but does not explain when to prefer this over other resource-access tools, nor does it mention exclusions or prerequisites. Essentially, it lacks any when-to-use or when-not-to-use instructions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It does reveal that files are persisted in temp storage, which is a meaningful side effect. However, it omits other behavioral details like validation, size limits, potential errors, or how the uploaded file is referenced later, leaving the agent partially informed.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences: the first states the tool's purpose, the second confirms the parameter semantics. It is front-loaded, free of filler, and every word earns its place, making it highly concise and well-structured.
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?
The tool is simple (2 required strings, no nested objects) and has an output schema, so return-value details are not needed in the description. However, the lack of usage guidance relative to sibling upload tools is a notable omission, and the description doesn't mention how the stored file relates to other temp-resource tools, leaving some contextual gaps.
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?
The input schema has no descriptions (0% coverage), so the description must clarify both parameters. It explains that 'base64' is the base64-encoded content and 'filename' is the desired name, with a concrete example. This adds meaningful context beyond the raw schema properties, though it doesn't specify details like allowed formats or max length.
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 clearly states the tool uploads a base64-encoded file and persists it in temp storage. It uses specific verb 'upload' with resource 'file encoded as base64' and destination 'temp storage'. However, it does not distinguish from sibling tools like upload_file or upload_file_url, which also upload files, 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 Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus its siblings (upload_file, upload_file_url). It merely instructs how to pass parameters, with no mention of context, exclusions, or alternatives. This leaves the agent without criteria for tool selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses a meaningful behavioral trait: bytes/file-like/dict inputs will be saved to temp storage. However, it does not mention output format, potential errors, or any side effects beyond the temp save. This is partial transparency but not comprehensive.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is highly efficient: a single topic sentence followed by a concise bulleted list of accepted inputs. There is zero fluff, and the most important information is front-loaded. Every word earns its place.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values are covered. The description explains the core purpose and input handling, which is the main complexity here. It lacks detail on encoding and edge cases (e.g., invalid PDFs), but for a straightforward extraction tool with structured output schema, it is sufficiently complete.
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%, but the description compensates well for the required 'file' parameter by detailing three accepted forms (full path, short filename, bytes/file-like/dict with base64). However, it provides no explanation of the optional 'encoding' parameter, which remains undocumented. Significant but incomplete compensation.
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?
The description clearly states the tool's function ('Extract all text from a PDF') with a specific verb and resource. 'All text' distinguishes it from sibling extract_text_by_page, and the list of accepted input forms adds useful context. This fully clarifies what the tool does.
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?
The description implies usage for full-document text extraction via the phrase 'all text', but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions. With siblings like extract_text_by_page and extract_metadata, the description would benefit from saying when to use this tool instead, but the core context is present.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral transparency burden. It discloses the side effect of persisting the file to temp storage and mentions the runtime dependency ('Requires 'requests' to be installed'). However, it does not detail failure modes, size limits, or the relationship to temp storage resources, leaving some gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise: two short sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose and then usage essentials. Every sentence contributes value without redundancy.
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?
Given the simple parameter set, presence of an output schema, and sibling tools that use temp storage, the description is sufficiently complete. It explains the operation and dependency, and the output schema can cover return values. Minor gaps exist regarding temp storage details, but it is adequate for the tool's scope.
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 add meaning. It explicitly mentions 'url' and 'optional filename override', clarifying the role of each parameter beyond the bare schema. It does not fully describe filename behavior (e.g., default derived from URL), but it covers the main semantics.
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?
The description clearly states 'Download a file from a URL and persist it in temp storage', using a specific verb (download/persist) and resource (URL file to temp storage). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like upload_file (local file) and upload_file_base64 (base64 data).
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?
The description implies usage: 'Provide a direct URL and optional filename override.' This gives context on how to use the tool. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use this versus the sibling upload_file/upload_file_base64 tools, or any exclusions. The usage is implied rather than explicitly contrasted with alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It correctly communicates the read-only listing nature and supported filters, but it does not explain the scope of 'available' (e.g., session-persistence, expiry) or any ordering/edge-case behavior. This is adequate but not rich.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise, with one introductory sentence and two bullet points, each carrying necessary information. No filler or redundancy exists; it is well-structured for quick parsing.
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?
The tool is simple, has an output schema, and the description covers its core purpose plus both parameters. Minor ambiguities around what 'available temporary files' means remain, but the overall context is sufficient for a tool of this complexity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description explicitly explains both parameters, including allowed MIME types for content_type and the limiting effect of max_items. Since the input schema has no descriptions, this fully compensates for the schema's lack of detail and adds meaningful guidance.
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?
The description clearly states the tool lists available temporary files, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_resource_base64 or get_pdf_info by focusing on enumeration rather than retrieval or processing.
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 clearly indicates the tool is for listing temporary files with optional filters, providing obvious context for when to use it. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or situations where another tool would be preferred, so it stops short of a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden. It states 'non-secret' and uses 'Return' which implies a read-only, safe operation. This adds value beyond the tool name and schema, though it doesn't detail performance or side effects. Given the zero-parameter nature, this transparency is adequate.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, well-structured sentence that fully defines the tool's purpose. It avoids fluff and includes the important caveat about secrets. Every word earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the presence of an output schema and the simple zero-parameter nature of the tool, the description provides sufficient context. It names the core output ('server info and configuration snapshot') and the non-secret guarantee. No additional detail is necessary for an AI agent to use this tool correctly.
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?
The tool has zero parameters, so per guidelines the baseline is 4. The description correctly implies the output focuses on server info/configuration, providing meaningful context even without parameters. No additional parameter explanation is needed.
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?
The description uses a specific verb ('Return') and clearly identifies the resource ('server info and configuration snapshot'). It explicitly notes the non-secret nature, distinguishing it from potential sensitive operations. Among sibling tools that are all PDF-related, this stands out as the unique server info tool.
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 implies usage: when you need server info or configuration snapshot, use this tool. Since all sibling tools are PDF-specific, there is no ambiguity or competing alternative, providing clear context without explicit exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![pdf_mcp_server MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/gabrielmrojas/pdf_mcp_server/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/gabrielmrojas/pdf_mcp_server)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![pdf_mcp_server MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/gabrielmrojas/pdf_mcp_server/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/gabrielmrojas/pdf_mcp_server)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/gabrielmrojas/pdf_mcp_server'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server