Paperboy

Official

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

insert_blank_pages

DestructiveIdempotent

Add blank pages to a PDF after specified page numbers, with an optional count per insertion; use position 0 to place pages before the first page.

Instructions

Insert count blank pages (1-100) after each page number in after; 0 inserts before the first page. E.g. after=[3, 7] adds a blank page after pages 3 and 7. Each blank page is the size of the page before it. inserted lists the new pages' numbers in the output. Needs the owner password if the PDF forbids document assembly. Signed PDFs are refused.

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>",
      "after": "<after>"
    },
    "name": "insert_blank_pages"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`after`	Yes
`count`	No
`password`	No
`overwrite`	No
`input_path`	Yes
`output_path`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`pages`	Yes
`output`	Yes
`inserted`	Yes
`password_protected`	Yes
`user_password_changed`	Yes
`permissions_restricted`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Addedv0.1.1Nov 12, 2026

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, and the description adds substantive behavior: the 1-100 count cap, that each blank page inherits the size of the preceding page, that signed PDFs are refused, and the 'ask' password handshake so secrets never enter the chat. It does not explain what overwriting does to an existing output file, which is the notable remaining gap.

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?

The core semantics are front-loaded followed by the worked example, and each sentence carries information. The trailing password/'ask' paragraph is useful but slightly displaces the operation itself, and overwrite could have used that space more profitably.

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?

For a 6-parameter mutation tool, the description covers the risky semantics (destruction risk, refusal conditions, auth requirements) and the return value is documented by an output schema. The only real deficiency is the unexplained overwrite and path parameters.

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 carries the burden. It explains `after` thoroughly (multi-page list, 0 sentinel, worked example), `count` (1-100, default implied) and `password` (including the 'ask' convention), but leaves `overwrite`, `input_path`, and `output_path` — half the parameters — undefined in both schema and prose.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('Insert count blank pages') plus the exact scoping rule ('after each page number in after; 0 inserts before the first page'), backed by a concrete example with after=[3, 7]. An agent can tell this apart from sibling page tools such as find_blank_pages or delete_pages from the text alone.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

Usage conditions are clear: it states the count range, the sentinel value 0, the permission prerequisite (owner password when assembly is forbidden), and a hard exclusion ('Signed PDFs are refused'). It does not name an alternative tool, but the when/when-not constraints are explicit enough to guide selection.

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