Paperboy

Official

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

get_metadata

Read-onlyIdempotent

Reads PDF metadata—title, author, subject, keywords, creator, and producer—from a file, with optional password input handled locally so credentials stay out of chat.

Instructions

Read document metadata: title, author, subject, keywords, creator, producer.

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": "get_metadata"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`password`	No
`input_path`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`path`	Yes
`metadata`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedv0.1.1Nov 12, 2026

changedOutput schema / (root)

Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "properties": {
+    "metadata": {
+      "additionalProperties": {
+        "type": "string"
+      },
+      "title": "Metadata",
+      "type": "object"
+    },
+    "path": {
+      "title": "Path",
+      "type": "string"
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "path",
+    "metadata"
+  ],
+  "title": "MetadataResult",
+  "type": "object"
+}

First observedv0.1.0Oct 21, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds non-obvious behavioral context beyond that: the "ask" password flow keeps the secret out of the chat transcript, which an agent could not infer from the schema or annotations. It does not mention behavior on encrypted or corrupted files, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and its returned fields, followed by the one non-obvious parameter caveat. Every sentence carries information an agent needs and there is no filler.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value documentation is unnecessary, and the description covers the action, the fields of interest, and the password handling quirk. Only minor gaps remain, such as what happens when a wrong password is supplied.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does so well for password — explaining the special "ask" value that the schema's plain string/null type does not convey — but says nothing about input_path (absolute vs relative, existence requirements). Partial compensation for a two-parameter tool.

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 names a specific verb and resource ("Read document metadata") and enumerates the returned fields (title, author, subject, keywords, creator, producer), which clearly separates it from get_outline or extract_text. It stops short of naming a sibling tool or stating the boundary explicitly, so it is clear but not maximally differentiated.

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 second sentence gives concrete usage guidance for the password parameter (the "ask" flow), which is genuinely helpful. However, there is no explicit statement of when to use this tool versus set_metadata for writes, or versus get_outline for other document inspection needs; usage is implied by the field list rather than stated.

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