Skip to main content
Glama
shuji-bonji

pdf-verify-mcp

by shuji-bonji
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

Identify PDF/A / PDF/UA Declarations

identify_conformance
Read-onlyIdempotent

Identify declared PDF/A and PDF/UA conformance from a PDF's XMP metadata to check claims before validation.

Instructions

Identify declared PDF/A (pdfaid) and PDF/UA (pdfuaid) conformance in a PDF's XMP metadata.

Args:

  • file_path (string): Absolute path to a local PDF file

  • response_format ('markdown' | 'json'): Output format (default: 'markdown')

Returns: Every report begins with a "scope" object - how far the reading got, not a verdict: whether the cross-reference chain could be walked to the end (chainStop), whether this tool had to rebuild the cross-reference table itself (reconstructed - when true, the table is this tool's reconstruction and not the one the file carries), how many objects and sections were read, and whether an encrypted document could be opened. Read it before the verdict: "no violations" over a rebuilt table is not the same statement as "no violations" over the file's own table.

Declared PDF/A part/conformance level and PDF/UA part, plus the PDF version.

IMPORTANT: This tool only IDENTIFIES the declared conformance — a declaration does not guarantee actual conformance. For real PDF/A rule checking use the validate_conformance tool (native rule subset, or veraPDF when installed).

Examples:

  • Check whether a document claims PDF/A-2b before archiving

  • Detect PDF/UA declarations for accessibility workflows

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
file_pathYesAbsolute path to a local PDF file (e.g., "/path/to/document.pdf")
response_formatNoOutput format: "markdown" for human-readable, "json" for structured datamarkdown

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.29.1

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the description adds valuable context beyond that: it explains the 'scope' object, what chainStop and reconstructed mean, and warns that results over a rebuilt cross-reference table carry different weight. It also mentions encryption handling. This is rich behavioral disclosure not available in annotations.

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 well-structured with distinct sections (Args, Returns, IMPORTANT, Examples) and is front-loaded with the core purpose. Every section earns its place, providing essential context about output semantics and usage. Despite its length, it remains focused and technically precise without redundancy.

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

Completeness5/5

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

There is no output schema, so the description must explain return values. It does so thoroughly, detailing the scope object, the declared conformance fields, and the PDF version. Examples further clarify expected use. Given the tool's complexity and the absence of an output schema, the description is complete enough for an agent to call it correctly.

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 both file_path and response_format already clearly described, including the enum and default. The description's 'Args' section restates these but doesn't add new meaning beyond the schema. Thus the baseline of 3 applies; no extra semantic value is introduced.

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 states a specific verb (Identify) and resource (declared PDF/A and PDF/UA conformance in XMP metadata), and explicitly distinguishes itself from validate_conformance by noting it only identifies declarations, not actual conformance. This clearly differentiates it from siblings.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

The description explicitly names the alternative tool (validate_conformance) and the exact condition when to use it instead ('for real PDF/A rule checking'), along with examples of appropriate use cases. This leaves no ambiguity about when to select this tool.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools