Extract text, lines, words, bounding boxes, and OCR confidence from a single PDF page using existing text layers or Tesseract OCR.
One page's text and lines (boxes in PDF points, OCR confidence); with words, every word too.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| dpi | No | render resolution for OCR | |
| psm | No | Tesseract layout: 3 a page, 4 a column, 6 a block, 11 sparse | |
| lang | No | eng | |
| page | Yes | from 1 | |
| path | Yes | ||
| words | No | ||
| force_ocr | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose non-obvious return details (boxes in PDF points, OCR confidence). However, it says nothing about when OCR is triggered, what force_ocr changes, or failure behavior for out-of-range pages.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single sentence with no filler, and the page scope is front-loaded. The stacked parenthetical ('boxes in PDF points, OCR confidence') is dense and slightly cryptic but does not waste words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a 7-parameter read tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description does cover the returned content (text, lines, optional words), but omits OCR-trigger conditions, error behavior, and the meaning of several parameters, so it is only minimally sufficient.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is only 43%, so the description must compensate; it usefully expands the bare 'words' boolean into 'returns every word too'. But lang, path, and force_ocr remain undocumented in both schema and description, leaving four of seven parameters without semantics.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The fragment names the exact resource and scope ('One page's text and lines'), and the parenthetical clarifies what those lines carry (PDF-point boxes, OCR confidence). An agent can distinguish it from read_pages by scope, though it never explicitly names that sibling as the alternative.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance; the agent must infer from the singular name that read_pages covers multiple pages. No preconditions (valid page range, OCR vs embedded text) are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.