Skip to main content
Glama
sandraschi

pdf-mcp

pdf_export

Generate reusable markdown or JSON briefs from PDF files, including headings, key terms, and optional summaries.

Instructions

Build a reusable document brief (markdown or JSON) with headings, key terms, and optional summary.

Return Format

A dict with keys:

  • success: bool

  • path: str - brief file path

  • pages: int

  • summary: str | None

Examples

await pdf_export(path="report.pdf", format="markdown") {"success": true, "path": ".../report_brief.md", "pages": 12, "summary": "..."}

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pathYesPath to the PDF file.
formatNoOutput format. Default markdown.markdown
include_summaryNoAppend an LLM summary when available. Default true.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
messageNoHuman-readable summary
successNoWhether the operation succeeded

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.2.1

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the write/no-side-effect profile is partly conveyed structurally, and the description adds that a brief file is written (via path) with an appended LLM summary when available. It does not state overwrite behavior, required permissions, or that the summary step may be costly/non-deterministic, so credit is moderate.

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 one-line purpose and keeps the return-format and example sections terse and skimmable. Slight redundancy in restating return keys that an output schema already covers.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need not be explained, yet the description restates them, which is harmless filler rather than a gap. For a file-writing tool the main missing context is write/permission and overwrite semantics.

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 parameters (path, format, include_summary) are already well documented; the description only echoes format options and the optional summary. Nothing beyond the schema is added, matching the 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 ("Build") and resource ("reusable document brief") plus the artifact's content (headings, key terms, summary). It does not, however, differentiate clearly from siblings like pdf_extract or pdf_analyze, which also derive content from a PDF.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or named alternatives are given, despite 15 sibling tools in the pdf_* family. The agent must infer the tool's niche on its own.

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