MinerU MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions that the tool returns a 'task_id to check status', which indicates asynchronous processing and hints at a follow-up step, adding some context beyond basic parsing. However, it lacks details on rate limits, authentication needs, error handling, or what the parsing output entails (e.g., structured data, text extraction), leaving gaps in behavioral understanding.

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 with just two sentences: 'Parse a document URL. Returns task_id to check status.' It is front-loaded with the core purpose and efficiently conveys key behavioral information (asynchronous nature) without any wasted words, making it highly effective for its length.

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 complexity of 8 parameters and no output schema, the description is minimally complete. It states the purpose and hints at asynchronous behavior, but lacks details on output format (e.g., what parsing yields), error cases, or integration with sibling tools. With no annotations and an output schema missing, it provides basic context but leaves significant gaps for a tool with multiple configuration options.

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 has 100% description coverage, providing detailed explanations for all 8 parameters (e.g., 'url' for document URL, 'model' with enum values and speed/accuracy trade-offs). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already documents, so it meets the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage without compensating value.

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 a document URL') and the resource ('document'), which provides a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'mineru_batch' or 'mineru_status', which likely handle batch processing or status checking respectively, so it misses full sibling differentiation.

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 returning a 'task_id to check status', which implies asynchronous processing, but doesn't specify when to choose this over 'mineru_batch' for multiple documents or how it relates to 'mineru_status' for checking results. No explicit when/when-not or alternative usage is stated.

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