Extract structured content from an uploaded lesson file (PDF) to enable further processing.
Parse an uploaded lesson file (PDF) and extract structured content
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| file_name | Yes | Name of the uploaded file | |
| file_type | Yes | MIME type of the uploaded file | |
| file_content | Yes | Base64 encoded file content. Injected by system. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of explaining side effects. It does not state whether parsing is read-only, whether any file data is persisted, or what happens on invalid or non-PDF input. This leaves important behavioral expectations unaddressed.
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?
The description is a single, concise sentence that communicates the core purpose without unnecessary detail or repetition. It is well-structured and easy to scan.
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?
The description lacks an output schema and does not describe the shape of the extracted structured content. An agent would not know whether the result is JSON, a list of sections, raw text, or something else. It also does not cover error behavior for unsupported files.
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?
The input schema properties are described with generic boilerplate ('Name of the uploaded file', 'MIME type', 'Base64 encoded file content'), but the tool description does add that the file is expected to be a PDF. However, it does not clarify accepted MIME values, filename conventions, or content encoding requirements beyond what the schema already states.
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 description clearly states the action ('Parse'), the target resource ('an uploaded lesson file (PDF)'), and the expected outcome ('extract structured content'). This distinguishes it from the listed sibling tools, none of which perform file parsing.
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?
The description gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, file-size limits, or scenarios where another tool would be more appropriate. The use case is only implicitly inferable from the verb 'Parse'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.