mcp-pdf-tools

Server Quality Checklist

Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

Latest release: v1.0.0
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: pdf_extract_pages extracts text from specific pages, pdf_extract_text extracts all text, pdf_info provides metadata, pdf_search finds text matches, and pdf_word_stats analyzes word frequencies. There is no overlap or ambiguity between these functions.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tools follow a consistent 'pdf_' prefix with descriptive snake_case names (e.g., pdf_extract_text, pdf_search). This pattern is uniform across all five tools, making them predictable and easy to understand.
Tool Count5/5
With 5 tools, this server is well-scoped for PDF processing, covering extraction, metadata, search, and analysis. Each tool earns its place without redundancy, and the count is appropriate for the domain.
Completeness4/5
The toolset covers core PDF operations well, including extraction, metadata, search, and word analysis. A minor gap exists in lacking tools for PDF manipulation (e.g., merging, splitting, or editing), but the provided tools support common workflows effectively.
Average 3.1/5 across 5 of 5 tools scored.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
Add a LICENSE file by following GitHub's guide. Once GitHub recognizes the license, the system will automatically detect it within a few hours.
If the license does not appear after some time, you can manually trigger a new scan using the MCP server admin interface.
MCP servers without a LICENSE cannot be installed.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

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. It states the core behavior but lacks critical details: it doesn't mention output format (e.g., plain text, structured data), error handling (e.g., invalid page ranges), performance aspects (e.g., large PDFs), or side effects (e.g., file modifications). For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly. Every word earns its place by conveying essential information without redundancy.
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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete for a tool with 3 parameters and behavioral complexity. It lacks details on output format, error conditions, and usage context relative to siblings. While concise, it doesn't compensate for the missing structured information, leaving gaps for an AI agent.
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 clear parameter descriptions in the schema (e.g., 'Absolute path to the PDF file', 'Start page (1-indexed)'). The description adds no additional semantic context beyond implying page-range usage, so it meets the baseline of 3 where the schema does the heavy lifting.
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 action ('Extract text') and resource ('from a specific page range of a PDF'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like pdf_extract_text (which likely extracts all text) by specifying page-range extraction, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.
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 like pdf_extract_text or pdf_search. It mentions 'specific page range' but doesn't clarify scenarios where this is preferred over full-text extraction or search-based extraction, leaving usage context implied rather than explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('Extract') but doesn't mention potential side effects (e.g., if the file is locked or modified), performance characteristics (e.g., speed for large files), error handling, or output format details. This leaves significant gaps for a tool that interacts with files.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, direct sentence that efficiently conveys the core functionality without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the key action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly, which is ideal for conciseness.
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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete for a tool that performs file operations. It doesn't address behavioral aspects like error cases (e.g., invalid file paths or non-PDF files), output details (e.g., text format or truncation behavior), or integration with siblings, leaving the agent with insufficient context for reliable use.
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?
The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the input schema, which has 100% coverage with clear descriptions for both parameters. Since schema coverage is high, the baseline score is 3, as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't detract from the well-documented schema.
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 action ('Extract') and resource ('all text content from a PDF file'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like pdf_search (which might also extract text but with search filtering) or pdf_word_stats (which analyzes text), leaving room for improvement in sibling distinction.
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. With siblings like pdf_extract_pages (which might extract specific pages) and pdf_search (which might filter text), there's no indication of when this general text extraction is preferred, nor any mention of prerequisites or constraints beyond the parameters.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action 'search for text' but doesn't describe how the search behaves—e.g., case-sensitivity, partial matches, return format, or error handling. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its operational traits.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any fluff or redundancy. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to parse quickly. Every word earns its place, contributing to clarity without waste.
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 tool has no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the search returns (e.g., matches, positions, context), error conditions, or behavioral details. For a search tool with three parameters and no structured output information, more context is needed to fully understand its operation.
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 clear descriptions for all parameters (file_path, query, max_results). The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as search semantics or result formatting. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't detract.
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 verb 'search' and the resource 'text within a PDF file', making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like pdf_extract_text or pdf_word_stats, which might also involve text processing. The description is specific but lacks sibling distinction.
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 like pdf_extract_text (which extracts all text) or pdf_word_stats (which analyzes text). There's no mention of prerequisites, such as needing a valid PDF file, or context for when searching is preferred over other text-related operations.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool's function but fails to describe key behaviors: whether it handles large files, what happens with invalid PDFs, if there are rate limits, or the format of the output (e.g., JSON structure). This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand operational constraints.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose without unnecessary words. Every part earns its place by specifying the action and resource clearly, making it easy to scan and understand quickly.
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 tool's moderate complexity (analyzing PDFs for statistics) and lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not address behavioral aspects like error handling, performance, or output format, which are critical for an agent to use the tool effectively in real-world scenarios.
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 fully documents both parameters (file_path and top_n). The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining how word frequencies are calculated or what 'top words' entails. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.
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?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose with specific verbs ('Get word count and top word frequencies') and resource ('from a PDF'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like pdf_extract_text (which extracts text) and pdf_info (which provides metadata). It precisely communicates what the tool does beyond just extracting or searching PDF content.
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 like pdf_extract_text (for raw text) or pdf_search (for specific content). It lacks any mention of prerequisites, such as needing a valid PDF file, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage context from the tool name and purpose alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the tool's purpose as a read-only metadata retrieval operation, which implies non-destructive behavior, but does not add details like error handling, performance characteristics, or output format. The description is adequate but lacks rich behavioral context beyond the basic function.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Get metadata and statistics about a PDF file') and provides specific examples in parentheses. There is no wasted verbiage, and every element contributes directly to understanding the tool's function.
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?
Given the tool's low complexity (single parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is reasonably complete. It covers the purpose and key metadata types, but lacks details on output structure or error cases. For a simple read operation, this is sufficient, though not exhaustive.
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?
The schema description coverage is 100%, with the parameter 'file_path' fully documented in the schema. The description does not add any parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides, such as file format constraints or path examples. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is 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?
The description clearly states the verb 'Get' and the resource 'metadata and statistics about a PDF file', with specific examples like pages, author, title, and text length. It distinguishes from sibling tools (pdf_extract_pages, pdf_extract_text, pdf_search, pdf_word_stats) by focusing on metadata retrieval rather than extraction, search, or word-level analysis.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for obtaining metadata and statistics from a PDF, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like pdf_word_stats for word-level stats or pdf_extract_text for text content. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned, leaving usage context somewhat open-ended.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![mcp-pdf-tools MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/seraphinerenard/mcp-pdf-tools/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/seraphinerenard/mcp-pdf-tools)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![mcp-pdf-tools MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/seraphinerenard/mcp-pdf-tools/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/seraphinerenard/mcp-pdf-tools)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

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/seraphinerenard/mcp-pdf-tools'

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