Skip to main content
Glama
pdfdotco

PDF.co MCP Server

Official
by pdfdotco
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

create_fillable_forms

Add fillable text fields and checkboxes to a PDF by specifying annotations and positions, turning static documents into forms ready for user input.

Instructions

Create new fillable form elements in a PDF document.

Example annotations format:
[
    {
        "text": "prefilled text",
        "x": 10,
        "y": 30,
        "size": 12,
        "pages": "0-",
        "type": "TextField",
        "id": "textfield1"
    },
    {
        "x": 100,
        "y": 150,
        "size": 12,
        "pages": "0-",
        "type": "Checkbox",
        "id": "checkbox1"
    }
]

Ref: https://developer.pdf.co/api/pdf-add.md

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
urlYesURL to the source PDF file. Supports publicly accessible links including Google Drive, Dropbox, PDF.co Built-In Files Storage. Use 'upload_file' tool to upload local files.
nameNoFile name for the generated output. (Optional)
api_keyNoPDF.co API key. If not provided, will use X_API_KEY environment variable. (Optional)
profilesNoExtra engine options for this endpoint as a JSON object encoded in a string. The options differ per endpoint; see https://developer.pdf.co/api/profiles. (Optional)
expirationNoLifetime of the output link in minutes; the output file is deleted afterwards. API default is 60; the maximum depends on the plan. (Optional)
annotationsYesList of form annotations to create. Each annotation can be a textfield or checkbox with properties like 'x', 'y', 'size', 'pages', 'type', and 'id'.
httppasswordNoHTTP auth password if required to access source url. (Optional)
httpusernameNoHTTP auth user name if required to access source url. (Optional)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changedv0.0.11
    • addedInput schema / properties / expiration
      Added value: +{
+  "anyOf": [
+    {
+      "type": "integer"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "null"
+    }
+  ],
+  "default": null,
+  "description": "Lifetime of the output link in minutes; the output file is deleted afterwards. API default is 60; the maximum depends on the plan. (Optional)",
+  "title": "Expiration"
+}
    • addedInput schema / properties / profiles
      Added value: +{
+  "default": "",
+  "description": "Extra engine options for this endpoint as a JSON object encoded in a string. The options differ per endpoint; see https://developer.pdf.co/api/profiles. (Optional)",
+  "title": "Profiles",
+  "type": "string"
+}
  2. First observed

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It reveals the annotation object shape and links to the upstream API doc, which is genuinely useful, but it never says whether the source PDF is modified or a new file is produced, nor what the response contains (e.g., output URL).

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?

Purpose statement is front-loaded, the example is the most information-dense part of the definition and earns its space given the untyped array item schema, and the reference link is a single line. No filler sentences.

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?

For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description should state what is returned and that a new document is generated. It covers input shape well but leaves the result and side effects unstated, so an agent cannot predict the outcome.

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%, which sets a baseline of 3, but the annotations parameter declares items as an empty schema with only a loose prose description. The worked JSON example supplies the actual field names and value types (text, x, y, size, pages, type, id) that the schema omits, so it adds real value above 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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Create new fillable form elements in a PDF document.' That is clear enough to act on, but it does not distinguish itself from close siblings like fill_forms or pdf_add_annotations_images_fields, leaving the agent to infer the boundary.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as fill_forms (populate existing fields) or pdf_add_annotations_images_fields (add annotations/images). The example shows how to shape input but not when to pick this tool.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server

Other Tools