Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Paperboy

Paperboy

Official
by sudostash
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

check_pdf

Read-onlyIdempotent

Validate a PDF's structural integrity and report any problems found, including password-protected files with optional safe password entry.

Instructions

Validate structural integrity and report any problems found.

Any password argument can be "ask": the user then types it on a local page, so it never passes through the chat.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "input_path": "<input_path>"
    },
    "name": "check_pdf"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
passwordNo
input_pathYes

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
rawYes
pathYes
checkerYes
healthyYes
problemsYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv0.1.1
    • changedOutput schema / (root)
      Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "properties": {
+    "checker": {
+      "enum": [
+        "qpdf",
+        "pikepdf"
+      ],
+      "title": "Checker",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "healthy": {
+      "title": "Healthy",
+      "type": "boolean"
+    },
+    "path": {
+      "title": "Path",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "problems": {
+      "items": {
+        "type": "string"
+      },
+      "title": "Problems",
+      "type": "array"
+    },
+    "raw": {
+      "anyOf": [
+        {
+          "type": "string"
+        },
+        {
+          "type": "null"
+        }
+      ],
+      "title": "Raw"
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "path",
+    "healthy",
+    "checker",
+    "problems",
+    "raw"
+  ],
+  "title": "CheckResult",
+  "type": "object"
+}
  2. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description does add genuinely useful non-obvious behavior: the 'ask' password mode where the user types the secret on a local page so it never transits the chat. Beyond that it says nothing about what integrity checks are performed or whether problems are only reported or also fixed.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by the one piece of non-obvious operational detail. No filler, though the purpose sentence could name the resource to be fully self-contained.

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

Completeness3/5

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

An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is not required, and the password behavior is well covered. For a validation tool with zero parameter documentation, however, the description should at least clarify what 'structural integrity' encompasses and how this differs from repair_pdf or scan_pdf.

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 0%, so the description must carry the load; it partly does by explaining the special 'ask' value for the password parameter, which is not discoverable from the schema (a plain string|null). The required input_path parameter receives no explanation at all, leaving a real gap.

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+resource pair ('Validate structural integrity and report any problems found'), which is concrete enough for an agent to grasp the operation, though the resource ('PDF') is only implied by the name and never stated. It does not differentiate itself from nearby siblings like repair_pdf, sanitize_pdf, or scan_pdf, which also relate to document health.

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?

Provides no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and never mentions the obvious alternatives in the sibling set (repair_pdf for fixing, sanitize_pdf for cleaning, scan_pdf for safety inspection). The only routing information present is the password 'ask' convention, which is about invocation mechanics rather than tool selection.

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