Combine multiple PDFs into a single ordered file, with each source saved as a bookmark. Use it to assemble reports, contracts, or scanned pages into one document.
Join several PDFs into one, in order. Each source becomes a bookmark.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| output | Yes | ||
| sources | Yes | ||
| overwrite | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.2.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false). The description adds a genuine behavioral detail beyond that — 'Each source becomes a bookmark' tells the agent how the merged output is structured. However it omits key behavioral questions: what happens if the output file already exists (the overwrite default of false is never explained) and whether it errors, appends, or clobbers.
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?
Two short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and zero filler. Every clause earns its place.
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?
An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is not required, but for a file-mutating tool with a 0%-documented schema and a defaulted overwrite flag, the description leaves the agent guessing about destination handling and collision behavior — gaps it should have closed.
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 0%, so the description must compensate for three undocumented parameters and largely does not. 'In order' usefully implies that the sources array order determines merge order, but output (destination path/format) and overwrite (whether an existing file is replaced) receive no explanation at all.
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?
States a specific verb (join) and resource (several PDFs) with the scope 'into one, in order.' The operation is unambiguous and distinguishable from the closest sibling (split). It stops short of naming any alternative tool, so it lands at 4.
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?
There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no reference to alternatives. The only hint is the implied context of combining PDFs, which the agent must infer.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.