Create one PDF per supplied page range, such as '1-3, 4-8, 9-', saving each range as a new file in the output directory.
One new PDF per range, for instance '1-3, 4-8, 9-'.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | Yes | ||
| ranges | Yes | ||
| base_name | No | part | |
| output_dir | Yes |
| 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 declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false. The description adds that it creates new PDFs (one per range), which is useful context beyond annotations. However, it doesn't describe side effects on the source file, permissions, or error conditions.
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?
It's a single concise fragment that front-loads the core output, but it lacks a complete sentence and structural clarity, which limits comprehension.
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 4 parameters with no schema descriptions and a complex operation, the description leaves most parameter semantics and operational context unexplained. It is insufficient for correct invocation.
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. It only illustrates the ranges format via '1-3, 4-8, 9-', leaving path, output_dir, and base_name completely undocumented. This is a significant gap for a tool with 4 parameters.
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 states the output (one new PDF per range) and gives an example range format, but omits the action verb and the input resource (splitting a source PDF). An agent can infer the purpose from the name and description, but it lacks explicit differentiation from siblings like organize_pages or merge.
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?
No when-to-use guidance, no alternatives, and no prerequisites are provided. The description simply states what the tool produces, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.