MCP Document Processor

Official

by leanzero-srl

Overview Schema Related Servers Score Discussions

JavaScript

Local

Server Quality Checklist

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

Latest release: v1.0.0
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: creation tools are separated by format, editing tools by format, and management tools (dna, blueprint, drift-monitor, get-lineage, fact-check) are unique. No two tools overlap in functionality.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tool names follow a consistent lowercase-hyphenated verb-noun pattern (e.g., create-doc, edit-excel, list-templates). Even single-word tools like 'dna' and 'blueprint' fit the pattern as action-oriented names.
Tool Count5/5
17 tools cover reading, creating, editing, and managing documents across common formats (DOCX, XLSX, PPTX, PDF, Markdown) plus auxiliary features (detection, templates, lineage, fact-checking). No tool feels extraneous, and the scope is well-balanced.
Completeness4/5
Core CRUD operations are covered for most formats, but there is no tool for editing Markdown files (only create-markdown) and no deletion capability. Minor gaps, but the surface handles document lifecycle well overall.
Average 4.4/5 across 17 of 17 tools scored. Lowest: 3.8/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 1 commit 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

Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided; description compensates by disclosing lineage recording behavior (automatically tracked when read-doc/create-doc called in same session). Does not cover auth, rate limits, or error scenarios.
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?
Two sentences plus output structure explanation; concise and front-loaded with purpose. Could be slightly more structured but efficient.
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?
Provides output format and condition for lineage existence, but missing error behavior, response details beyond tree structure, and explicit read-only nature.
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 covers both parameters with descriptions; description adds default value for depth (3), which is useful context. No additional meaning for filePath.
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 it traces the provenance chain, specifies output structure (sources, derivatives), and differentiates from siblings like read-doc and create-doc.
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?
Implied usage for understanding document relationships, but no explicit when-to-use or alternatives against siblings like read-doc.
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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility. It discloses important behavioral traits: 'append-rows preserves existing styles,' 'append-sheet fails if name exists,' and 'preview shows what would change.' It also mentions style overrides and presets. This is substantial transparency for a mutation tool, though it lacks details on permission requirements or error handling.
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, under 100 words, and front-loads the core purpose. It uses a clear list format for actions, enclosing parenthetical details succinctly. Every sentence serves a purpose, and there is no redundancy or fluff.
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 10 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the essential operational context: actions, their effects, and a prerequisite hint. However, it does not explain the return value (e.g., success indicator or updated file info), nor does it mention error scenarios or validation of filePath format. It is sufficient for common use cases but could be more 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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value beyond the schema by grouping actions and implicitly linking parameters (e.g., 'rows required for append-rows,' 'sheetData required for append-sheet and replace-sheet'). This context helps the agent understand parameter dependencies, which the schema alone does not fully convey.
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 'Edit an existing XLSX workbook' and lists four specific actions (append-rows, append-sheet, replace-sheet, preview). This goes beyond a simple verb+resource, providing a concrete scope. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling edit tools (like edit-pptx) or the create-excel tool, though the context of editing existing XLSX files is implied.
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 explicitly instructs to 'Use read-doc first if you don't know the sheet structure,' which is clear contextual guidance. It also lists the available actions, hinting at when to use each. However, it does not provide explicit when-not-to-use scenarios (e.g., when to use create-excel instead) or mention prerequisites like file existence.
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 must fully cover behavior. It explains the actions and that learn extracts from existing documents, but does not discuss error scenarios (e.g., missing file, duplicate names) or side effects when deleting a blueprint that is in use. More behavioral details would improve transparency.
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 three sentences long, with no wasted words. The first sentence provides the core purpose, the second enumerates actions compactly, and the third gives essential context about integration with create-doc. Information is front-loaded and easy to parse.
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 description covers the main usage scenarios and connects to a sibling tool (dna) for auto-learning. It explains the purpose of each action and parameter. Minor gaps include lack of information on naming constraints, error handling, and whether blueprints are global or workspace-specific. Nonetheless, the description is sufficient for most use cases.
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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema; it repeats the required conditions for parameters (e.g., name required for learn/delete, filePath required for learn). However, it does provide context like 'extract from a DOCX or PDF you already have', which clarifies the filePath parameter's intent.
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 defines the tool's purpose: managing structural blueprints extracted from documents. It lists the specific actions (learn, list, delete) and differentiates itself from sibling tools by explaining how blueprints are used with create-doc via the 'blueprint' parameter.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly states when to use each action: learn for extracting from DOCX/PDF, list for showing stored blueprints, delete for removal. It also notes that blueprints are auto-learned during 'dna evolve', providing a clear alternative and context for use.
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 full burden. It explains the cross-MCP workflow, the need for API keys, the output structure (evidence, source URLs, keyword-overlap score), and the optional PDF report. It doesn't detail error handling or rate limits but covers essential behavioral aspects.
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 relatively long but well-structured, starting with the purpose and then detailing usage. Some sentences contain excessive details that could be streamlined, and the inclusion of both a summary and separated parameter descriptions makes it slightly verbose.
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 complexity (13 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers the main input mechanisms, dependencies, output format, and optional report generation. It lacks details on error states and limitations but is sufficient for an agent to use the 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?
Although the schema already describes all 13 parameters (100% coverage), the description adds significant context: it explains the relationship between claims, filePath, and content, highlights required keys despite the schema listing them as optional, and clarifies the uploadUrl mechanics. This goes beyond the schema.
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 purpose: to fact-check a document or explicit claims against the live web. It uses specific verbs and resources and distinguishes from siblings as no other sibling tool offers fact-checking functionality.
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 provides clear guidance on when to use the tool, including the alternative input methods (claims array or filePath/content) and the requirement for external keys. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare with specific sibling tools.
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?
Discloses AND-logic for filters and return format, but lacks details on pagination, error handling, or performance implications. Without annotations, the description is adequate but not exhaustive.
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 sentences, no wasted words, front-loaded with purpose and filter logic, then return format and usage hint. Exceptionally 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?
Covers purpose, filters, return structure, and a usage hint. Lacks mention of pagination or sorting, but for a simple search tool with no output schema, it is fairly 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?
Adds value beyond schema by explaining how filters combine (AND-logic) and clarifying case-insensitive substring matching for title, while schema already covers individual parameter 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 it searches the document registry and explicitly distinguishes from create-doc by suggesting its use before creation to avoid duplicates.
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?
Provides clear guidance to use before create-doc to check for similar documents, but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives among siblings.
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 full burden. It adds behavioral context by defining templates and blueprints, but lacks disclosure on read-only nature, authentication needs, or side effects. Adequate 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?
Two sentences, no filler. First sentence states purpose, second provides usage context with clear examples. Every sentence 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?
Given no output schema and no annotations, the description explains the two result types and their application in create-doc. It could mention if the list is all available or filtered, but overall fairly complete for a list tool.
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 100% for the single parameter. The description adds value by linking the category filter to 'learnedFrom' and 'recommendedFor', enhancing understanding beyond the schema.
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?
Description clearly states the tool lists both document templates and blueprints, distinguishing between the two types. It also explains how the returned `name` is used with create-doc, providing specific verb and resource identification.
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 explicitly tells when to use the tool (to get names for referencing in create-doc) and what to do with the results. It does not explicitly state when not to use it, but the context is clear among siblings.
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?
No annotations are provided, so the description fully carries the burden. It details slide structure (title slide, ## for new slides), markdown support, native chart creation, style presets, and dry-run behavior. Does not mention rate limits or auth, but those are not critical for this tool. The description is transparent about what the tool produces and how it behaves.
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 comprehensive but somewhat lengthy. It front-loads the core purpose and usage, then details slide structure and markdown. Every sentence adds value, but some redundancy (markdown lists repeated) could be trimmed. It balances completeness with readability.
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 18 parameters and no output schema, the description covers key behavior: slide generation, markdown rendering, chart creation, styling, dry run. It lacks information on return format (but no output schema needed) and pagination. Sufficient for an agent to use the 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?
Schema description coverage is 100% (all 18 parameters have descriptions), so the baseline is 3. The description adds significant value beyond schema by explaining how headings map to slides, how to structure content, the chart syntax, and the relationship between content and paragraphs. This helps the agent use parameters effectively.
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 it creates an editable .pptx presentation and distinguishes from siblings like create-doc, create-pdf, create-markdown, create-excel by specifying use cases (slides/decks) and output format.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly says 'USE when the user asks for slides... NOT for flowing document...' and lists alternatives (create-doc/create-pdf/create-markdown/create-excel). Also mentions dryRun for preview, providing clear when-to-use and when-not guidance.
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, the description carries full burden. It explains the analysis logic (weighs words, intent, topic) and return fields comprehensively. However, it omits details about error handling or edge cases (e.g., ambiguous input).
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?
Front-loaded with key instruction, then detailed examples. Every sentence adds value, though slightly verbose. Well-organized with logical flow from usage to return structure.
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 no output schema, the description fully explains all return fields and logic. Covers format detection rules, unsupported formats, and integration with creation tools. Complete for a planning tool.
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 100% with good descriptions. The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond 'the more context, the better' for content. Does not significantly enhance parameter understanding beyond schema.
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 verb ('PLAN') and resource ('best output format'), with specific examples of format detection logic. It distinguishes itself from sibling creation tools by emphasizing it should be called FIRST to determine format.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly says 'Call this FIRST whenever the user didn't explicitly name a format', providing clear when-to-use guidance. Also implies when-not-to-use (if format is named). Describes context-dependent format selection with examples.
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, the description effectively discloses key behavioral traits: the fingerprint components (SHA-256, heading tree, word counts), the 500-paragraph cap, and the reported metrics for 'check'. It omits some details like side effects or permissions, but overall provides sufficient transparency for the tool's actions.
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 concise—two sentences that front-load the purpose and enumerate actions with details. No wasted words; every sentence adds value.
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 complexity (two actions, three parameters, no output schema), the description covers all key aspects: actions, parameters, output of 'check', and a constraint on 'watch'. It could elaborate on error handling or prerequisites, but it is largely complete for the agent to decide correct usage.
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% with baseline 3, but the description adds significant meaning beyond raw schema: it specifies that 'name' is only for 'watch', explains 'filePath' requirement and optionality, and clarifies the action parameter's behavior. This enriches the schema information.
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 purpose: monitoring documents for structural drift. It defines two actions ('watch' and 'check') with specific details, distinguishing it from sibling tools which are centered on document creation/editing rather than analysis.
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 provides concrete guidance on when to use each action ('watch' for fingerprinting, 'check' for comparison) and notes optional behavior for 'filePath' on check. It implies a workflow (watch first, then check), but does not explicitly state when not to use the tool or direct users to alternatives.
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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses modes, pptx output format, source requirements (authHeader for URL), and suggests using indepth before editing. It does not mention side effects, but as a read tool, none are expected.
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 dense paragraph that front-loads the main purpose, then details modes, pptx behavior, sources, and usage advice. It is concise but could benefit from slight structuring (e.g., bullets) for clarity. Still, every sentence 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?
With 7 parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers modes, sources, and usage hints. It does not describe return values, but that is acceptable given no output schema. The advice 'read before editing' adds useful context for workflow.
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?
Schema coverage is 100%, but the description adds significant context beyond schema: it explains modes (summary, indepth, focused) with examples, describes the remote source structure, clarifies that context and userQuery are only for focused mode, and notes that url requires authHeader. This is high value.
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 it reads and analyzes PDF, DOCX, Excel, or PowerPoint files, lists three modes, specifies behavior for pptx, and mentions two source types. It also differentiates from sibling edit-doc by advising to use 'indepth' before editing.
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 provides clear context for when to use each mode and hints at alternatives (use 'indepth' before edit-doc). It does not explicitly exclude other siblings, but the sibling list is dominated by creation tools, making this tool's purpose distinct.
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, the description covers behavioral traits comprehensively: duplicate detection, response fields (formattingQuality, formatSuggestion), dry-run, upload semantics, and style auto-selection. Lacks explicit statements on idempotency or reversibility, but is very thorough.
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 verbose (~400 words) with some redundancy (markdown syntax repeated in description and parameter description). However, it is well-structured with clear sections and examples. Given the tool's complexity, the length is partially justified but could be more 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?
No output schema, but the description mentions response fields (formattingQuality, formatSuggestion) and covers error cases (duplicate), preview, and upload. Lacks full success response format, but is sufficient for an agent to understand the tool's behavior and expectations.
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?
Schema coverage is 100%, but the description adds substantial value beyond schema: it explains preferred usage of `content` vs `paragraphs`, gives detailed markdown syntax, default margin behavior, stylePreset auto-selection, uploadUrl semantics, and provides an example. This far exceeds the baseline.
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 creates a styled, editable Word DOCX, specifies target use cases (stakeholder/business/legal/research deliverables), and explicitly distinguishes from sibling tools like create-pdf, create-markdown, and create-excel.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides explicit when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance, names sibling tools for alternatives, and includes actionable instructions like using markdown for body, duplicate handling, and dry-run preview.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description fully discloses key behaviors: 'evolve' with apply:true is irreversible, memory actions are project-wide, and DNA auto-applies to create-doc calls. No contradictions noted.
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 paragraph but well-organized by actions using semicolons. It is concise with no filler, though a bullet list could improve scannability. All sentences contribute value.
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?
Covers actions and warnings adequately for 11 params and no output schema. Missing details: init idempotency, return format for get/evolve. But remains largely complete for practical use.
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 useful context beyond schema: e.g., 'save-memory: optional, auto-generated' and 'evolve only: when true, AUTO-MUTATES'. This enhances understandability.
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 manages 'Document DNA' (header/footer/style defaults) and lists specific actions: init, get, evolve, save-memory, delete-memory. It differentiates from sibling tools like edit-pptx or create-doc by focusing on reusable defaults.
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?
Each action is explained with context: 'init' for one-time setup, 'evolve' for analyzing trends with a warning about apply:true being destructive. It does not explicitly list when not to use the tool, but the action-based structure provides clear guidance.
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?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Discloses key traits: uses headless Chromium, supports headers/footers with page numbers, margins, dryRun preview, and that response includes formattingQuality and formatSuggestion. Could mention error handling but is thorough overall.
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?
Description is long but well-structured: starts with purpose, then usage guidelines, then features, then markdown details, then example. Every sentence adds value; it is front-loaded with key information for agent decision-making. Slightly verbose but not wasteful.
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 22 parameters and no output schema, the description provides a comprehensive overview: main usage patterns, markdown syntax, an example, and output hints. It covers enough context for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly without additional clarification.
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?
Input schema has 100% description coverage, so baseline 3. Description adds significant value: explains TOC as a 'superpower', recommends content over paragraphs, describes page number placeholders, and details the uploadUrl contract. This justifies a score above baseline.
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?
Description clearly states it creates a FINAL, fixed-layout PDF for reading/printing/sending/signing. It explicitly distinguishes from create-doc (editable content) and create-markdown (code/repo docs).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides explicit when-to-use (e.g., 'PDF / print / send to the client / official / invoice') and when-not-to-use (e.g., 'NOT for content they'll keep editing' with named alternatives). Includes usage tips like putting body in content string and using TOC.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description fully carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It explains each action's effect: 'append' preserves formatting, 'replace' overwrites body but keeps section properties, 'style' applies preset without changing text, 'preview' shows changes. It also warns that useLegacy destroys original formatting when set to true.
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, front-loading the main purpose and actions, then providing usage guidance. Every sentence adds value; no redundant or extraneous text.
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 complexity (12 parameters, nested objects, no output schema), the description covers the main actions and critical usage instruction. It doesn't explain return values or error handling, but the rules state output schema is not required. The description adequately prepares the agent for core usage.
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 100%, so every parameter has a description. The description adds value by explaining the action parameter's effects and warning about useLegacy. However, it does not elaborate on all parameters beyond what the schema provides, but the baseline for high coverage is 3, and the additional context justifies a 4.
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 edits an existing DOCX file, listing specific actions (append, replace, style, preview) that each have distinct effects. It distinguishes from sibling tools like read-doc, create-doc, edit-pptx, etc., by specifying it modifies existing DOCX files.
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 provides a strong usage guideline: 'Always read-doc with mode indepth first so you understand the existing structure.' This tells the agent when to use a prerequisite sibling. However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use this tool or compare with alternatives like create-doc for new documents.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral transparency. It extensively details behaviors: auto-formatting of money/percent columns, live formulas via '=', autofilter on headers, zebra striping, sheet name validation (rejects generic names), dry run for preview, upload URL semantics with single-use and non-retry advice, and default behavior for outputFormat. No contradictions exist, and the coverage is thorough.
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 detailed and includes an embedded example, which adds value but also length. It is well-structured with bold key terms and bullet-like exposition. While it could be slightly more concise, every sentence serves a purpose, and the front-loaded summary ('Create a styled Excel XLSX (or CSV).') immediately conveys the core function.
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 17 parameters, only one required, and no output schema, the description covers all critical aspects: core operation, superpowers, sheet constraints, upload mechanics, style options, dry run, and filing defaults. It leaves no obvious gaps for an agent to misunderstand how to select or invoke the tool.
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?
Although schema description coverage is 100%, the description goes far beyond the schema by explaining how the data parameter works (first row as header, '=' for formulas), how style presets are auto-selected, the effect of dryRun, and the uploadUrl contract (single-use, generic receiver). It adds significant operational context that the schema alone cannot provide.
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 opens with a clear verb and resource: 'Create a styled Excel XLSX (or CSV).' It explicitly states the tool is for tabular and numeric data, listing concrete examples (budgets, trackers, KPIs). It also distinguishes from sibling tools by asserting that tabular content belongs here rather than in a doc, effectively differentiating itself from 'create-doc' and similar tools.
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 provides clear when-to-use guidance: 'USE for ANY tabular/numeric data' with examples. It also gives a specific negative example: 'even a table inside a report belongs here, not in a doc.' However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use the tool or mention alternative tools beyond the doc reference. A clear exclusion statement would elevate this to 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?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Discloses features (toc, frontmatter), markdown syntax, dryRun preview, upload semantics (single-use, no retry), and response includes formattingQuality. Lacks explicit statement on side effects beyond file creation, but overall transparent.
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?
Purpose is front-loaded. Description is thorough but somewhat lengthy; however, each sentence adds value. Could be slightly more concise in listing markdown syntax, but overall well-structured and efficient.
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?
For 17 parameters with 100% schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers all aspects: usage, features, parameter semantics, examples, upload handling, and response content (formattingQuality). Complete and self-contained.
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?
Schema coverage is 100%, but description adds significant value beyond schema: explains relationships (toc with headings, frontmatter for static-site generators), usage patterns (simplest usage with content string, title becomes H1 so start at '## '), and provides a detailed example. Enriches understanding of each parameter.
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?
Explicitly states 'Create a Markdown (.md) file for technical/code content' and distinguishes from siblings by specifying what it is NOT for (stakeholder-facing, printable deliverables, tabular data) and naming alternative tools (create-doc, create-pdf, create-excel).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides explicit when-to-use (READMEs, API docs, etc.) and when-not-to-use scenarios with clear references to sibling tools (→ create-doc / create-pdf / create-excel).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description fully discloses critical behavioral traits: the tool REBUILDS the deck, extracts text and speaker notes, normalizes to a style preset, and does NOT preserve charts, images, or exact original formatting. This level of transparency is exemplary 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.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is efficiently structured: purpose first, then actions, then critical behavioral caveat (IMPORTANT), then sibling guidance. Every sentence provides necessary context without redundancy. It is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.
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 tool's complexity (12 parameters, 3 actions, significant side effects), the description covers purpose, actions, behavioral implications, and tool selection guidance comprehensively. No output schema exists, but the description sufficiently explains what each action produces (preview shows outline, append/replace modifies file).
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 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description adds action-specific context (e.g., 'one '## ' heading per slide' for content, '1-based index among CONTENT slides' for slideIndex) and explains the uploadUrl workflow. While the schema is clear, the description enhances understanding of how parameters interact with actions.
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 opens with 'Edit an existing PowerPoint (.pptx)' and enumerates three specific actions ('preview', 'append-slides', 'replace-slide'), clearly stating the tool's purpose. It distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly naming create-pptx and read-doc, ensuring the agent understands the tool's scope.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides explicit when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance: 'To author a brand-new deck use create-pptx; to read a deck use read-doc.' It also notes that the tool is best for text/bullet decks from create-pptx and warns about loss of charts/images, giving clear context for appropriate usage.
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:

[![leanzero-mcp-doc-processor MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/leanzero-srl/leanzero-mcp-doc-processor/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/leanzero-srl/leanzero-mcp-doc-processor)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![leanzero-mcp-doc-processor MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/leanzero-srl/leanzero-mcp-doc-processor/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/leanzero-srl/leanzero-mcp-doc-processor)

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/leanzero-srl/leanzero-mcp-doc-processor'

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