Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
skim-pdf-mcp

skim-pdf-mcp

by james-yap
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

Get pending underlines

get_pending_underlines
Read-onlyIdempotent

Lists pending red underlines in a Skim PDF document in reading order, including quoted text, to help review and process annotations.

Instructions

List pending (red) underlines of a document in reading order, with quoted text.

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": "get_pending_underlines"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
document_pathNoPath of an open document. Default: the front document.

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful return-shape context (reading order, quoted text) but says nothing about pagination, scope limits, or what 'pending' means operationally.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence naming the resource, ordering, and payload; every clause earns its place and there is no filler.

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 one-optional-parameter read-only tool with a declared output schema and full annotation coverage, the definition supplies enough to invoke it correctly. The only gap is disambiguation from get_reading_context, which the description leaves unaddressed.

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 100%, so document_path and its 'default: the front document' behavior are fully documented in the schema. The description only alludes to 'a document' and adds no syntax or fallback detail beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline 3 applies.

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 verb and resource ('List pending (red) underlines of a document') plus two extra qualifiers: reading order and quoted text. This clearly separates it from the mutating siblings mark_processed and clear_processed, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with get_reading_context.

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 only implied: 'pending' suggests items not yet processed, which loosely links to the mark_processed/clear_processed siblings. There is no explicit statement of when to call this versus get_reading_context, nor any prerequisite or exclusion.

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