PDF Tools MCP Server

Server Quality Checklist

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

Latest release: v0.1.4
Disambiguation4/5
Most tools have distinct purposes, but the search-related tools (search_pdf_content, search_pdf_go_page, search_pdf_info, search_pdf_next_page, search_pdf_prev_page) could be confusing as they form a tightly coupled set for pagination. The core PDF operations (extract, merge, read, get info) are clearly differentiated.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tools follow a consistent snake_case verb_noun pattern (e.g., extract_pdf_pages, merge_pdfs, search_pdf_content). The naming is predictable and readable throughout the set, with clear action-object relationships.
Tool Count4/5
9 tools is reasonable for a PDF-focused server, but the 5 search-related tools might feel slightly heavy compared to the 4 core PDF manipulation tools. The count is well-scoped overall, though some search tools could potentially be consolidated.
Completeness4/5
The server covers essential PDF operations (extract, merge, read, get info) and adds advanced search with pagination. Minor gaps include no PDF creation from scratch or editing capabilities, but the core workflows for analysis and manipulation are well-covered.
Average 3.9/5 across 9 of 9 tools scored. Lowest: 2.9/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 0 commits 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

Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool 'Get information' but doesn't clarify what type of information (e.g., status, results, metadata), whether it's read-only or has side effects, or any constraints like rate limits. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.
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 appropriately concise with three sentences that cover purpose, parameter, and return value. It's front-loaded with the main function, though the 'Args' and 'Returns' sections could be integrated more smoothly rather than as separate labeled lines.
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?
Given the tool has an output schema (which handles return values), 1 parameter with low schema coverage, and no annotations, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose and parameter meaning but lacks behavioral details and usage guidelines, making it incomplete for optimal agent understanding.
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?
With only 1 parameter and 0% schema description coverage, the description adds meaningful context by explaining that 'search_id' is a 'Search session ID from previous search'. This clarifies the parameter's purpose beyond the schema's minimal title ('Search Id'), though it doesn't specify format or validation rules.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the tool 'Get information about a search session', which is a clear verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from its siblings like 'search_pdf_content' or 'search_pdf_go_page', leaving ambiguity about what specific 'information' it provides versus other search-related tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 'search session ID from previous search', implying a prerequisite, but doesn't specify which sibling tool creates that ID or when to choose this over other search tools like 'search_pdf_content' for different purposes.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions that it returns 'previous page of search results or error message,' which gives some insight into outcomes, but lacks details on error conditions, pagination behavior (e.g., what happens if no previous page exists), rate limits, or authentication needs. This is inadequate for a tool with no annotation coverage.
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 concise and well-structured, with a clear purpose statement followed by brief sections for arguments and returns. Every sentence adds value, and there's no unnecessary information. However, it could be slightly more front-loaded by integrating the return info into the main description for better flow.
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?
Given the tool's moderate complexity (pagination in search results), no annotations, and an output schema exists (which handles return values), the description is minimally complete. It covers the basic purpose and parameter but lacks details on behavioral aspects like error handling or usage context, leaving gaps that could hinder an AI agent's effective use.
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?
The description adds minimal semantics beyond the input schema. It explains that 'search_id' is a 'Search session ID from previous search,' which clarifies its purpose, but the schema description coverage is 0%, and with only one parameter, the baseline is 4. However, it doesn't fully compensate by detailing format or constraints, so it scores slightly below baseline.
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 the tool's purpose: 'Get previous page of search results.' It specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('previous page of search results'), making it easy to understand. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'search_pdf_next_page' or 'search_pdf_go_page', which handle similar pagination functions, so it misses full sibling distinction.
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?
The description implies usage by mentioning 'search session ID from previous search,' suggesting it should be used after initiating a search. However, it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'search_pdf_next_page' or 'search_pdf_go_page,' nor does it specify any exclusions or prerequisites beyond the search_id parameter.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions that the tool returns 'Next page of search results or error message,' which gives some insight into outcomes, but lacks details on error conditions, pagination behavior (e.g., what happens if no next page exists), rate limits, or authentication needs. This leaves gaps for an agent to understand operational nuances.
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 appropriately sized and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core purpose, followed by brief sections for arguments and returns. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information without redundancy, making it efficient 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?
Given the tool's moderate complexity (pagination operation), no annotations, and an output schema present (which handles return values), the description is reasonably complete. It covers the purpose, parameter semantics, and return outcomes, though it could benefit from more behavioral context like error handling or pagination limits to be fully comprehensive.
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?
The description adds meaning beyond the input schema by explaining that 'search_id' is a 'Search session ID from previous search,' clarifying its purpose and origin. With 0% schema description coverage, this compensates somewhat, but it doesn't detail the format or constraints of the ID. Since there's only one parameter, the baseline is 4, but the limited semantic enhancement reduces the score to 3.
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 the tool's purpose: 'Get next page of search results.' It specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('next page of search results'), making it easy to understand what the tool does. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from its sibling 'search_pdf_prev_page' beyond the directional implication in the name.
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?
The description implies usage context by mentioning 'Search session ID from previous search,' suggesting this tool should be used after an initial search. However, it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like 'search_pdf_prev_page' or 'search_pdf_go_page,' nor does it specify any prerequisites or exclusions beyond the implied sequence.
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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions that the tool returns 'Specified page of search results or error message,' which gives some insight into outcomes. However, it lacks details on error conditions, pagination behavior (e.g., total pages, what happens if page_number is out of range), or performance aspects. It adds basic context but is incomplete for a tool with no annotation support.
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 and well-structured: a clear purpose statement followed by bullet-point-like sections for 'Args' and 'Returns.' Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information without redundancy. It's front-loaded with the core functionality and efficiently details parameters and outcomes.
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 moderate complexity (2 parameters, no annotations, but has an output schema), the description is reasonably complete. It explains the purpose, parameters, and return behavior. The output schema likely covers return values, so the description doesn't need to detail them further. However, it could improve by addressing error scenarios or sibling tool differentiation, keeping it from a perfect score.
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?
The description adds significant meaning beyond the input schema, which has 0% description coverage. It explains that 'search_id' is a 'Search session ID from previous search' and 'page_number' is 'Page number to go to (1-indexed),' clarifying the purpose and format of both parameters. This compensates well for the schema's lack of descriptions, though it doesn't cover edge cases like invalid IDs.
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 the tool's purpose: 'Go to specific page of search results.' It specifies the verb ('Go to') and resource ('page of search results'), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'search_pdf_next_page' or 'search_pdf_prev_page' beyond the 'specific page' aspect. The purpose is clear but sibling differentiation is only implicit.
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?
The description implies usage context through the 'search_id' parameter description ('Search session ID from previous search'), suggesting this tool should be used after initiating a search. However, it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like 'search_pdf_next_page' or 'search_pdf_prev_page', nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions. Usage is implied but not fully articulated.
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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses useful behavioral traits: it downloads URLs to a temporary directory, requires a local output path, and returns a success/error message. However, it lacks details on permissions, rate limits, file size constraints, or error handling specifics.
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 front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by key usage notes and a structured breakdown of args and returns. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it efficient and easy to scan.
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 moderate complexity (3 parameters, no annotations, but with an output schema), the description is mostly complete. It explains inputs and general behavior, and the output schema handles return values, but it could include more on error cases or performance limits for thoroughness.
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 adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining that 'source_path' can be a URL (downloaded temporarily), 'page_numbers' are 1-indexed, and 'output_path' must be local. It covers all three parameters but could provide more detail on formats or constraints.
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 with specific verbs ('extract specific pages from a PDF and create a new PDF'), identifies the resource (PDF), and distinguishes it from siblings like 'merge_pdfs' (which combines PDFs) and 'read_pdf_pages' (which likely reads content without creating a new file).
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 this tool (extracting pages to create a new PDF) and mentions support for URLs, but does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives among siblings (e.g., 'merge_pdfs' for combining PDFs or 'read_pdf_pages' for just reading).
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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds useful context beyond basic function, such as that URLs are downloaded to temporary files and the output must be a local path. However, it lacks details on permissions, error handling, or rate limits, which are important for a tool that processes external resources.
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 well-structured and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by supporting details and parameter explanations. Each sentence earns its place by providing essential information without redundancy, making it efficient 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?
Given the tool's moderate complexity (merging files with external inputs), no annotations, and an output schema present, the description is mostly complete. It covers input semantics and behavioral context but could benefit from more details on error cases or performance limits to fully guide the agent.
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?
The schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must fully compensate. It effectively explains both parameters: 'pdf_paths' as a list of paths in order that can include URLs, and 'output_path' as a local path for saving the merged PDF. This adds clear meaning beyond the bare 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 specific action ('merge multiple PDF files into one') and identifies the resource ('PDF files'). It distinguishes this tool from sibling tools like 'extract_pdf_pages' or 'get_pdf_info' by focusing on combining files rather than extracting, reading, or searching content.
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 on when to use this tool by specifying it handles 'both local file paths and URLs' and supports 'mixed local and URL paths.' However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives among siblings, such as using 'extract_pdf_pages' for partial operations instead.
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 of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes key behaviors: the tool searches PDF content using regex, supports local files and URLs, downloads and caches URLs temporarily, returns paginated results with a UUID for pagination, and includes error handling. It also specifies the page size range (10-50) and default (10). This covers most operational aspects, though it could mention performance or rate limits.
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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, starting with the core purpose. Each sentence adds value: the first states the action, the second explains input sources, and the parameter and return sections provide necessary details without redundancy. The structure is clear and efficient, with no wasted words.
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 moderate complexity (3 parameters, no annotations, but with an output schema), the description is mostly complete. It covers purpose, usage, parameters, and returns, and the output schema likely handles return value details. However, it could improve by mentioning sibling tools for context or providing more on error cases, but it's sufficient for effective 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?
The description adds significant meaning beyond the input schema, which has 0% description coverage. It explains each parameter: 'pdf_file_path' as 'Path to the PDF file or URL to PDF', 'pattern' as 'Regular expression pattern to search for', and 'page_size' as 'Number of results per page (10-50, default: 10)'. This clarifies usage and constraints, compensating well for the schema's lack of 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 the tool's purpose: 'Search for regex pattern in PDF content and return paginated results.' It specifies the verb ('search'), resource ('PDF content'), and method ('regex pattern'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'extract_pdf_pages' or 'get_pdf_info' that perform different operations on PDFs.
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 usage: 'Supports both local file paths and URLs. For URLs, the PDF will be downloaded to a temporary directory and cached for future use.' This helps users understand when to use it (for searching content in PDFs from various sources). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives among the sibling tools, such as 'search_pdf_go_page' for navigation.
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 of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes key behaviors: it's a read-only operation (implied by 'Get'), supports multiple input types, and includes caching for URLs. It could improve by mentioning error handling or performance limits, but covers essential traits well.
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 well-structured and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by usage details and parameter/return sections. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it efficient and easy to parse for an AI agent.
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 low complexity (1 parameter), no annotations, and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is complete enough. It covers purpose, usage context, parameter semantics, and behavioral traits, leaving no critical gaps for effective tool invocation.
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?
The input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It adds meaningful semantics by explaining that 'pdf_file_path' can be a local path or URL, and clarifies the caching behavior for URLs. This goes beyond the schema's basic type definition, though it could detail format constraints or examples.
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 with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('basic information about a PDF file'), including the key detail of page count. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'extract_pdf_pages' or 'search_pdf_content' by focusing on metadata retrieval rather than content manipulation or searching.
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 usage by specifying it supports both local file paths and URLs, with caching behavior for URLs. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'search_pdf_info' or other siblings, leaving some ambiguity in tool selection.
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?
Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes key behaviors: support for local paths and URLs, downloading and caching for URLs, and a warning about page limits to prevent errors. This covers operational constraints and side effects, though it could add more on error handling or performance implications.
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 well-structured and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by supporting details, usage notes, and parameter explanations. Every sentence adds value, such as the caching behavior and page limit warning, with no redundant or wasted text.
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 moderate complexity, no annotations, and an output schema present (which handles return values), the description is complete enough. It covers purpose, usage, behaviors, and parameters, providing sufficient context for an agent to invoke the tool correctly without needing to explain return values explicitly.
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?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by explaining all three parameters: 'pdf_file_path' as path or URL, 'start_page' and 'end_page' as page numbers with defaults. It adds meaning beyond the bare schema by clarifying URL handling and default values, though it could detail format specifics like URL protocols or page numbering conventions.
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 verb 'read content from PDF file' and specifies the resource 'PDF file for specified page range', making the purpose explicit. It distinguishes from siblings like 'extract_pdf_pages', 'merge_pdfs', and 'search_pdf_content' by focusing on reading text content rather than extraction, merging, or searching operations.
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 this tool: reading content from PDFs with local paths or URLs, and includes a recommendation to avoid reading too many pages (<50). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name specific alternatives among the sibling tools, such as when to choose 'get_pdf_info' for metadata instead.
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:

[![pdf-tools-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/lockon-n/pdf-tools-mcp/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/lockon-n/pdf-tools-mcp)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![pdf-tools-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/lockon-n/pdf-tools-mcp/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/lockon-n/pdf-tools-mcp)

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/lockon-n/pdf-tools-mcp'

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