Merge multiple PDF files into a single new PDF in the exact order you specify, simplifying document assembly and combining reports or records.
Merge several PDFs, in the order given, into one new PDF.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| overwrite | No | ||
| input_paths | Yes | ||
| output_path | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| input_count | Yes | ||
| output_path | Yes | ||
| total_pages | Yes | ||
| output_bytes | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the useful ordering constraint but omits that a write occurs to output_path and that overwrite defaults to false, which matters for a destructive operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every clause earns its place by conveying ordering and output creation.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
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 no explanation, but for a destructive mutation with zero schema coverage the description should disclose the overwrite behavior and output-writing side effect. It is adequate but leaves a meaningful gap.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the burden, but it only clarifies the ordering semantics of input_paths. It says nothing about the overwrite flag's effect or about what output_path expects.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific verb (merge), a specific resource (PDFs), the ordering semantics ('in the order given'), and the outcome ('into one new PDF'). This is clearly distinguishable from siblings like pdf_info, pdf_extract_text, and pdf_to_images.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Usage is implied by the operation itself, but the description gives no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance, no mention of alternatives, and no note on prerequisites such as whether inputs must exist or be unencrypted.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.