pdf-modifier-mcp

by mlorentedev

Overview Schema Related Servers Score Discussions

Python

Local

Server Quality Checklist

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

Latest release: v1.6.0
Disambiguation4/5
Most tools are distinct: batch vs single modify, hyperlinks vs fonts. However, `inspect_pdf_fonts` (search text for font properties) and `read_pdf_structure` (full layout including fonts) could confuse an agent about which to use for font analysis.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with underscores (e.g., `modify_pdf_content`, `list_pdf_hyperlinks`). The only variation is the 'batch_' prefix, which clearly distinguishes batch operations from single operations.
Tool Count5/5
With 6 tools, the surface is well-scoped for PDF text modification: reading structure, inspecting fonts, extracting fonts, listing hyperlinks, and both single and batch modify. No tool feels redundant or missing for the intended domain.
Completeness4/5
The tool set covers the full workflow for text replacement and font inspection. Minor gaps exist, such as no tool for adding/removing pages or extracting images, but these are outside the stated focus on text modification.
Average 4.3/5 across 6 of 6 tools scored.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 38 commits in the last 12 weeks
- Last stable release on August 6, 2026
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI is passing
Add a LICENSE file by following GitHub's guide. Once GitHub recognizes the license, the system will automatically detect it within a few hours.
If the license does not appear after some time, you can manually trigger a new scan using the MCP server admin interface.
MCP servers without a LICENSE cannot be installed.
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

Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Without annotations, the description discloses key behaviors: independent file processing, failure tolerance, and output naming. It does not cover all edge cases but adds useful context beyond the input schema.
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 three sentences, front-loading the purpose and adding necessary behavioral details without any fluff.
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 presence of an output schema, the description covers core functionality and output behavior. It lacks details on error handling and prerequisites but is adequate for a batch tool.
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 coverage is 100%, providing baseline. The description adds value by specifying that output files keep the same filename as input, which is not in the schema, thus improving parameter understanding.
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: 'Apply the same text replacements to multiple PDF files at once.' It uses a specific verb and resource, and the name 'batch' distinguishes it from the sibling 'modify_pdf_content'.
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 mentions that each file is processed independently, implying batch use, but does not explicitly specify when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'modify_pdf_content' or when not to use it.
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, the description carries full burden. It states the tool 'searches through all pages' and lists returned fields (page number, context, font name, etc.). It discloses no destructive behavior and is transparent about its read-only nature.
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 two paragraphs, concise, and front-loaded with purpose. Every sentence adds value. 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 presence of an output schema, the description need not detail return values, but it does list them. It covers the core functionality, use case, and output fields. It is complete for an inspection tool, though error handling or performance notes could be added.
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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds context about usage for replacements but does not add new information about individual parameters beyond the 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's purpose: 'Search for specific text terms and report their font properties.' It distinguishes from siblings like 'modify_pdf_content' (modify) and 'extract_embedded_fonts' (extract fonts). The verb 'search' and resource 'PDF fonts' are specific.
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 explicit guidance: 'Use this tool to understand the exact font styling of text you want to replace.' This gives a clear use case. It does not explicitly mention when not to use or name alternative tools, but the context is clear.
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?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It explains output includes metadata and binary buffers for embedded custom fonts, and that Base 14 fonts are absent. Implies read-only behavior and file input, but does not elaborate on file size or password handling beyond schema.
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?
Three sentences: main action, use case, and key exclusion. Every sentence adds value, no redundant words. Front-loaded with core purpose.
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 output schema exists and low complexity, description covers essential: what it does, which fonts are included/excluded, and why. Sufficient for agent decision-making.
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 coverage is 100%, so schema already documents all parameters. Description adds no new parameter-specific details, but does clarify overall input-output relationship.
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?
Description clearly states 'Extract metadata and buffers of all embedded fonts in a PDF' and distinguishes between custom fonts (Type0 with buffer) and Base 14 system fonts that are not embedded. This differentiates it from sibling tools like inspect_pdf_fonts.
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?
Explicitly tells when to use ('inspect which fonts are actually embedded') and what fonts are excluded (Base 14). However, it does not mention when not to use or provide alternatives among siblings.
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?
Without annotations, the description must convey behavior. It explains the tool extracts links and reports URI, bbox, and text. It implies read-only behavior but does not explicitly state no side effects. Still, it covers the main output 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 three sentences long, front-loads the purpose, and provides usage context and output details without any 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?
For a read-only inspection tool with a full input schema and an output schema, the description adequately covers purpose, usage, and output. It is complete for the intended complexity.
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 descriptions cover all three parameters (100% coverage). The tool description adds no additional parameter-specific details, so baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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 extracts all hyperlinks and clickable URIs from a PDF. It distinguishes from sibling tools like modify_pdf_content or inspect_pdf_fonts by focusing on existing links only.
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 advises using it to inventory links before or after modifications. While it doesn't explicitly exclude other uses or name alternatives, the context is clear enough given the sibling tool set.
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?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses text matching within spans, font approximation using Base 14 fonts, replacement length concerns, and hyperlink/date features. Lacks mention of potential side effects like irreversibility or permission requirements.
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?
Well-structured with clear headings and bullet points. Each section serves a purpose without redundancy. Slightly lengthy but justified by the complexity of features (hyperlink, regex, page range).
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?
Covers main behaviors, edge cases (hyperlink, regex, password), and max file size. Output schema exists, so return value details are unnecessary. Could mention layout changes due to font approximation, but overall sufficiently comprehensive.
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 has 100% description coverage, but description adds significant value beyond schema: explains hyperlink syntax for replacements, regex format, page range formatting, and max_file_size default. Provides clear examples that schema alone does not.
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?
Description clearly states the tool finds and replaces text in a PDF while preserving font styles. It details the process (locate, redact, insert) and distinguishes from siblings like batch_modify_pdf_content or list_pdf_hyperlinks by focusing on single-file content modification.
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?
Provides clear usage sections for important behaviors, hyperlinks, regex, and page ranges. Implicitly distinguishes from batch_modify_pdf_content for multi-file tasks, but lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance or direct sibling comparisons.
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?
No annotations, but description fully explains tool behavior: read-only extraction of structural content. Discloses what is returned but doesn't mention file locking or performance; still sufficient for a read 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?
Description is well-structured: single sentence stating purpose, bulleted output details, and a usage directive. No redundant sentences; every part earns its place.
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 output schema exists, description complements it by explaining output structure. Covers purpose, parameters, and usage. Could add edge-case behavior but overall adequately complete.
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 baseline is 3. Description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond what schema provides; it lists output fields instead of detailing input 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?
Description clearly states verb+resource: 'Extract the complete structural content of a PDF document.' Details output (page dimensions, text elements with coordinates, fonts, color) and distinguishes from sibling modification tools.
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?
Explicit guidance: 'Use this tool FIRST to understand the document layout before making any modifications.' Implies alternatives are the sibling tools involving modifications.
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-modifier-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/mlorentedev/pdf-modifier-mcp/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/mlorentedev/pdf-modifier-mcp)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

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

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