Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
PDF MCP

PDF MCP

by gzigurella
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

fill_form

Populate PDF form fields (text, checkboxes, radio buttons, dropdowns) with specified values and save the filled document to a given output path.

Instructions

Fill form fields in a PDF document with provided values and save to output path. Supports text fields, checkboxes, radio buttons, and dropdowns.

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": {
      "file_path": "<file_path>",
      "fields": "<fields>",
      "output_path": "<output_path>"
    },
    "name": "fill_form"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
fieldsYesDictionary of field names and their values to fill
file_pathYesPath to the source PDF file
output_pathYesPath where the filled PDF will be saved

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It mentions supported field types (text, checkboxes, etc.) but does not disclose behavior like overwriting existing values, handling missing fields, or required permissions.

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?

Two concise sentences with no redundant information. The first sentence states the core action, the second adds supported field types. Efficient and front-loaded.

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?

While the tool is straightforward, the description lacks information about return value (e.g., success/error), and with nested object parameters (fields), more guidance on format would improve completeness.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by listing supported field types (text, checkboxes, radio buttons, dropdowns), which enhances understanding beyond the schema's generic property 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 tool fills form fields in a PDF and saves to an output path, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like get_form_fields (which reads) and extract_text (extracts text).

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 filling PDF forms but provides no explicit guidance on when to use versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites or excluded scenarios.

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