MCP PDF

by mcp-z

Overview Schema Related Servers Score Discussions

TypeScript

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: pdf-document creates flowing documents, pdf-image generates PNGs from PDFs, pdf-layout handles precise positioning, pdf-resume builds resumes from JSON, and text-measure calculates text dimensions. There is no overlap or ambiguity between these functions.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tool names follow a consistent hyphenated prefix pattern (pdf- or text-) with descriptive nouns, making them predictable and readable. The naming is uniform across the set without any deviations in style.
Tool Count5/5
With 5 tools, the server is well-scoped for PDF generation and manipulation, covering core needs like document creation, layout, image export, resume generation, and text measurement. Each tool earns its place without being excessive or insufficient.
Completeness4/5
The tool set covers key PDF operations: creation (pdf-document, pdf-layout, pdf-resume), conversion (pdf-image), and utility (text-measure). Minor gaps exist, such as no explicit tools for editing existing PDFs or merging files, but agents can work around this with the provided tools.
Average 4.2/5 across 5 of 5 tools scored. Lowest: 3.2/5.
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.
This repository includes a glama.json configuration file.
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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions output generation and features but fails to describe critical behaviors such as error handling, performance characteristics (e.g., processing time), or side effects (e.g., file storage implications). For a complex tool with 8 parameters, 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.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose. It avoids redundancy and wastes no words, though it could be slightly more structured by separating key features into bullet points for better readability.
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 complexity (8 parameters, nested objects) and the presence of an output schema, the description is minimally adequate. However, without annotations and with no guidance on usage or behavioral traits, it leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand when and how to invoke this tool effectively.
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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value by listing high-level features like 'layout customization' and 'styling', which loosely map to parameters but do not provide additional semantic context beyond what the schema offers.
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 ('Generate a professional resume PDF') and the input format ('from JSON Resume format'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like pdf-document or pdf-image. It also mentions key capabilities like layout customization and styling, which helps differentiate its purpose.
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 like pdf-document or pdf-layout. It lists features but does not indicate prerequisites, constraints, or typical scenarios for usage, leaving the agent to infer context from tool names alone.
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 does well by explaining key behavioral traits: 'Content flows naturally from top to bottom. Pages break automatically when content exceeds page height,' describing default margins that vary by page size, and listing supported content types with their purposes. It doesn't mention error conditions, performance characteristics, or output format details, but provides substantial operational context for a creation tool.
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 well-structured and appropriately sized. It starts with the core purpose, then provides usage guidance, explains key behaviors, lists content types, and ends with margin defaults. Most sentences earn their place, though the content type listing could be more concise. The information is front-loaded with the most important details first.
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 (6 parameters with nested objects) and the presence of an output schema (which means return values don't need explanation), the description provides good contextual completeness. It covers the tool's purpose, appropriate use cases, key behaviors, and content semantics. With no annotations, it could benefit from mentioning error conditions or performance limits, but it's largely complete for guiding usage.
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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds some value by explaining the purpose of content types like 'pageBreak', 'divider', and 'spacer', and mentioning default margin behavior. However, it doesn't provide significant additional semantic meaning beyond what's already in the comprehensive schema 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 creates a 'flowing PDF document with automatic pagination' and specifies it's 'best for: Reports, articles, letters, contracts, and documents with sequential content.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like pdf-image (likely for image manipulation), pdf-layout (likely for fixed layouts), and pdf-resume (likely specialized for resumes). The description goes beyond the name/title by explaining the flowing nature and target use cases.
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 about when to use this tool ('Best for: Reports, articles, letters, contracts, and documents with sequential content') and mentions the text-measure tool for precise dimensions. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use this tool versus alternatives like pdf-layout or pdf-resume, nor does it provide exclusion criteria or prerequisites for usage.
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 full burden and does well: explains pages are created as needed, default margins (0 for full canvas), positioning strategies (absolute vs relative), and group functionality for flexbox containers. Could improve by mentioning output format or error handling, but covers key behavioral aspects for a creation 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?
Perfectly structured with front-loaded purpose, usage guidelines, key features (page targeting, groups, default margins) in 5 focused sentences. Zero wasted words - every sentence provides essential information about when and how to use the tool effectively.
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 (7 parameters, nested objects) and no annotations, the description does well covering purpose, use cases, key behaviors, and flexbox capabilities. With an output schema present, it doesn't need to explain return values. Could mention error conditions or performance considerations, but provides solid foundation for agent understanding.
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 description coverage is high (86%), so baseline is 3. The description adds some value by explaining groups support 'direction, gap, justify, alignItems, and alignment properties for sophisticated layouts' and mentions 'page' property for multi-page targeting. However, it doesn't significantly enhance understanding beyond the well-documented schema parameters.
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 'Create a PDF with precise positioning using Yoga flexbox layout' - specific verb (create) + resource (PDF) + method (Yoga flexbox). It distinguishes from siblings by emphasizing precise positioning and flexbox layout, unlike pdf-document (general), pdf-image (image-focused), pdf-resume (resume-specific), and text-measure (measurement only).
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 states 'Best for: Dashboards, slides, certificates, flyers, and designs requiring exact placement' - clear when-to-use guidance. Implicitly distinguishes from siblings by focusing on layout-intensive designs rather than general documents (pdf-document), image handling (pdf-image), or resume generation (pdf-resume).
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 full burden and does well by explaining key behaviors: 'Returns exact dimensions', 'Width is measured as single-line natural width', and 'Height accounts for text wrapping when width is specified'. It doesn't mention performance characteristics or error conditions, but covers the core functionality adequately.
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. Every sentence earns its place: the opening statement defines the tool, bullet points provide usage guidelines, and the final sentence clarifies measurement behavior. No wasted words.
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, 100% schema description coverage, and the presence of an output schema, the description is complete enough. It explains what the tool does, when to use it, and key behavioral aspects without needing to detail return values (handled by output schema).
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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds some context about 'font, font size, and text content' and mentions 'width constraint' for multi-line layouts, but doesn't provide additional parameter semantics beyond what's already documented in 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 with specific verbs ('measure text width and height before rendering') and resources ('text dimensions based on font, font size, and text content'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on measurement rather than document/image creation or layout generation.
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 usage scenarios with bullet points: 'Calculate text width to set proper container sizes', 'Determine if text will fit in a given space', and 'Plan multi-line layouts by specifying width constraint'. These give clear guidance on when to use this tool versus 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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does well by explaining output characteristics (PNG images), file size implications, and context usage considerations. However, it doesn't mention potential limitations like maximum PDF size, processing time, or error conditions, which would be helpful 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 perfectly structured and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by organized sections for pages options and viewport scale recommendations. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential guidance without redundancy. The bullet points and bold formatting enhance readability without adding fluff.
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 (conversion with multiple parameters) and the presence of an output schema, the description provides complete context. It covers the transformation purpose, parameter semantics with practical examples, usage scenarios, and performance considerations. The output schema will handle return values, so the description appropriately focuses on input guidance and behavioral context.
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?
Despite 100% schema description coverage, the description adds significant value beyond the schema. It provides concrete examples for the 'pages' parameter (single page, multiple pages, all pages), detailed recommendations for 'viewportScale' with pixel dimensions and file sizes, and practical guidance on when to use different scales. This transforms technical parameters into actionable decisions.
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 ('Generate PNG image(s) from PDF pages') and distinguishes it from sibling tools by focusing on visual verification rather than document analysis or text measurement. It goes beyond the title by specifying the output format (PNG) and the transformation process.
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 this tool ('Use this to visually verify PDF output without opening external applications') and provides clear alternatives through viewport scale recommendations for different use cases (thumbnail for quick verification, preview as default, full for detailed views). It effectively guides the agent on selecting appropriate parameters based on context.
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:

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

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

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

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/mcp-z/mcp-pdf'

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