dbx-mcp

Generate and upload PDF

generate_and_upload_pdf

Destructive

Render HTML, Markdown, or plain text into a PDF and upload it to a Unity Catalog Volume path. Returns the destination path, file size, page count, and SHA-256.

Instructions

Render HTML (or Markdown / plain text, converted to escaped HTML) to a PDF and upload it to a Unity Catalog Volume path ending in .pdf. Remote URLs, file: links and relative resources in the HTML are blocked (only inline data: URIs are used). Returns the path, size in bytes, page count and SHA-256. Requires the optional xhtml2pdf dependency (pip install "dbx-mcp[pdf]").

Safety classification: depends on input (DESTRUCTIVE, WRITE).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`html`	No	HTML to render (external resources are never fetched).
`text`	No	Plain text to render instead of html.
`title`	No	Optional document title (used for markdown/text/HTML fragments).
`confirm`	No	Set to true ONLY after the user has reviewed the plan returned by a previous call with status 'confirmation_required'. Required for destructive/security-sensitive actions.
`dry_run`	No	If true, validate and return the planned change without executing it.
`markdown`	No	Markdown (headings, lists, code blocks, bold/italic) to render instead of html.
`overwrite`	No	Replace an existing file (DESTRUCTIVE; requires confirm).
`destination_path`	Yes	Target file in a Unity Catalog Volume, e.g. /Volumes/main/reports/files/q3.pdf

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`data`	No
`page`	No
`plan`	No
`tool`	Yes
`action`	No
`safety`	No
`status`	No		success
`summary`	Yes
`warnings`	No
`next_steps`	No	Suggested follow-up calls.
`request_id`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Oct 3, 2026

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Adds real context beyond annotations: external resources are blocked (only inline data: URIs), it discloses the return payload (path, size, page count, SHA-256), the optional dependency, and the destructive/write classification. Annotations already cover readOnly/destructive/openWorld hints, so the description's environment and output disclosures are the value-add; slightly more on overwrite semantics would push this to 5.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

Front-loads the core action and format behaviour, then safety classification. Dense but each sentence carries information. Minor redundancy between the parenthetical normalization note and the mention of html/text/markdown parameters.

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

Completeness4/5

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

An output schema exists so return values need not be re-explained, but the description still names them helpfully. With annotations and full schema coverage, the description covers inputs, environment restrictions, and safety classification. The confirm/dry_run workflow could be spelled out slightly more for a destructive tool.

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 coverage is 100%, so all 8 parameters including confirm, dry_run, and overwrite are already documented. The description reinforces input format conversion (Markdown/plain text to escaped HTML) but adds little syntax beyond the schema, making baseline 3 appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb (render to PDF and upload) and resource (Unity Catalog Volume path ending in .pdf), and enumerates accepted input formats. No sibling tool does this, so it is distinguishable without opening the schema.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Gives concrete context: input format options, destination constraint, dependency requirement. It also implies the confirm/dry_run flow for destructive actions. But it does not name an alternative (e.g., manage_volume_files) or say when NOT to use this vs. generic file tools.

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

Deploy Server