Skip to main content
Glama
pdfdotco

PDF.co MCP Server

Official
by pdfdotco
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

extract_attachments

Extracts embedded attachments from a PDF by URL and returns downloadable files. Use it to retrieve documents, images, or other files bundled inside a PDF.

Instructions

Extracts attachments from a source PDF file.
Ref: https://developer.pdf.co/api/pdf-extract-attachments.md

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
urlYesURL to the source PDF file.
api_keyNoPDF.co API key. If not provided, will use X_API_KEY environment variable. (Optional)
passwordNoPassword of PDF file. (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)
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

C2.8/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden and largely drops it: it never says what is returned (attachment list? archive? URLs?), whether the operation is async and requires get_job_check/wait_job_completion, whether outputs expire, or that an API key/credits are consumed. The 'expiration' and 'profiles' parameters hint at async job semantics the description never surfaces.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Only two sentences, which is short, but the second is a raw URL with no framing about what it explains or when the agent should consult it. There is no real waste, but the reference adds no self-contained value and the front-loaded sentence is under-specified rather than tight.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

A 7-parameter, no-annotation, no-output-schema tool needs the description to explain return shape and job/expiration behavior, and this one explains neither. An agent cannot tell from the description whether it will get attachment URLs, a zip, or a job ID to poll.

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%, with each of the 7 parameters self-documented (including API key fallback, http auth, and expiration lifetime). The description adds nothing beyond the one required 'url' implicitly, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Extracts attachments from a source PDF file') that is unambiguous and unlike anything in the sibling list (which covers conversion, splitting, form filling, etc.). No sibling actually competes with it, so the lack of explicit differentiation costs little.

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 statement of when to use this versus alternatives, no prerequisites (e.g., that this is for PDFs with embedded files rather than attachments in an email sense), and no exclusions. The only 'guidance' is a bare documentation link.

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