Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
PDF Reader MCP Server

PDF Reader MCP Server

by lihongwen
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

get_pdf_metadata

Read PDF metadata, including standard fields and optional XMP metadata, to inspect document properties.

Instructions

Read PDF metadata including standard fields and optionally XMP metadata.

Args:
    file_path: Path to PDF file
    include_xmp: Whether to include advanced XMP metadata (default: False)
    
Returns:
    JSON string with comprehensive metadata information

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>"
    },
    "name": "get_pdf_metadata"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
file_pathYes
include_xmpNo

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.1

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

No annotations provided, but the description clearly states 'Read' indicating a non-destructive operation. It also specifies the return format (JSON string with comprehensive metadata). No behavioral contradictions.

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 with two sentences plus a structured docstring. Every sentence adds value, and the core purpose is front-loaded.

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 simplicity (2 parameters, output schema present, no nested objects), the description fully covers what the agent needs to know. No missing elements.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains both parameters: file_path as path to PDF, include_xmp as flag for XMP metadata. While basic, it adds sufficient meaning 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 uses specific verb 'Read' and resource 'PDF metadata', clearly distinguishing from sibling tools like set_pdf_metadata (write) or remove_pdf_metadata (delete). The scope includes standard fields and optional XMP metadata.

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 implies when to use (to read metadata) but does not explicitly discuss when not to use or provide alternatives. However, the context is clear given sibling tool names.

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