Skip to main content
Glama
pdfdotco

PDF.co MCP Server

Official
by pdfdotco

pdf_to_image

Convert PDF files and scanned images to JPG, PNG, WebP, or TIFF formats for easier viewing, sharing, or editing.

Instructions

Convert PDF and scanned images to various image formats (JPG, PNG, WebP, TIFF).
Ref:
 - https://developer.pdf.co/api-reference/pdf-to-image/jpg.md
 - https://developer.pdf.co/api-reference/pdf-to-image/png.md
 - https://developer.pdf.co/api-reference/pdf-to-image/webp.md
 - https://developer.pdf.co/api-reference/pdf-to-image/tiff.md

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
urlYesURL to the source file. Supports publicly accessible links including Google Drive, Dropbox, PDF.co Built-In Files Storage. Use 'upload_file' tool to upload local files.
httpusernameNoHTTP auth user name if required to access source url. (Optional)
httppasswordNoHTTP auth password if required to access source url. (Optional)
pagesNoComma-separated page indices (e.g., '0, 1, 2-' or '1, 3-7'). Use '!' for inverted page numbers (e.g., '!0' for last page). Processes all pages if None. (Optional)
unwrapNoUnwrap lines into a single line within table cells when lineGrouping is enabled. Must be true or false. (Optional)
rectNoDefines coordinates for extraction (e.g., '51.8,114.8,235.5,204.0'). (Optional)
langNoLanguage for OCR for scanned documents. Default is 'eng'. See PDF.co docs for supported languages. (Optional, Default: 'eng')eng
line_groupingNoEnables line grouping within table cells when set to '1'. (Optional)0
passwordNoPassword of the PDF file. (Optional)
nameNoFile name for the generated output. (Optional)
typeNoType of image to convert to. (jpg, png, webp, tiff) (Optional)jpg
api_keyNoPDF.co API key. If not provided, will use X_API_KEY environment variable. (Optional)
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions conversion capabilities but lacks critical details: whether it's a read-only or mutating operation, authentication requirements (beyond optional API key), rate limits, output format specifics, or error handling. The external links might contain this info, but the description itself is insufficient for an agent to understand behavioral traits.

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?

The description is brief but includes external links that don't add immediate value for an AI agent. The first sentence is clear, but the reference links are redundant if the schema is comprehensive. It could be more front-loaded by integrating key usage notes directly, making it slightly less efficient.

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?

Given the complexity (12 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It lacks output details (e.g., what the tool returns), error conditions, and behavioral context. While the schema covers parameters well, the description fails to address broader usage and operational aspects, leaving gaps for an agent to invoke the tool effectively.

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 the schema already documents all 12 parameters thoroughly. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema—it doesn't explain how parameters interact (e.g., 'rect' with 'pages') or provide examples. With high schema coverage, the baseline is 3, as the description doesn't compensate with additional insights.

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?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: converting PDFs and scanned images to various image formats (JPG, PNG, WebP, TIFF). It specifies both the input types (PDF and scanned images) and output formats, making the verb+resource relationship explicit. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'image_to_pdf' or 'pdf_to_text', which would require a 5.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions external documentation links but doesn't specify use cases, prerequisites, or comparisons with sibling tools like 'pdf_to_text' or 'pdf_make_searchable'. Without any contextual direction, users must infer usage from the purpose alone.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

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/pdfdotco/pdfco-mcp'

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