MinerU MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the batch size limit (max 200 URLs), which is useful, but fails to describe other critical behaviors such as rate limits, authentication needs, error handling, or what the output looks like (e.g., parsed content format). For a batch processing tool with no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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 extremely concise—a single sentence that efficiently conveys the core functionality and a key constraint (max 200 URLs). It's front-loaded with the main action and has zero wasted words, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (7 parameters, batch processing) and lack of annotations or output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the output format, error conditions, or behavioral nuances like processing order or concurrency. For a tool with no structured output guidance, more context is needed to help the agent use it effectively.

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 description coverage is 100%, meaning all parameters are documented in the schema itself. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's in the schema (e.g., it doesn't explain URL formats, model trade-offs beyond schema hints, or format details). With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description doesn't compensate but doesn't detract either.

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 tool's purpose: parsing multiple URLs in a batch with a maximum limit of 200. It specifies the verb ('parse') and resource ('URLs'), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like mineru_parse (which might handle single URLs) or mineru_batch_status (which likely checks batch status). This makes it clear but not fully sibling-distinct.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions a batch size limit but doesn't compare it to mineru_parse (for single URLs) or mineru_batch_status (for status checks), nor does it specify prerequisites or exclusions. This leaves the agent without clear usage context.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.