Reorder, duplicate, or reverse PDF pages with a custom page order. Pages not listed are dropped unless append_unlisted is true.
Reorder/duplicate/reverse pages. page_order e.g. "3,1,2", "5-1" (reverse), "last,1-4".
Unlisted pages are dropped unless append_unlisted=true. Pages may repeat to duplicate.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| password | No | ||
| overwrite | No | ||
| input_path | Yes | ||
| page_order | Yes | ||
| output_path | No | ||
| append_unlisted | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose two important behaviors – unlisted pages are dropped unless append_unlisted=true, and repeated pages duplicate content – but says nothing about overwrite semantics, password handling, or where output is written for a tool that mutates/creates files.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Three short sentences, each earning its place, with the core action front-loaded and the syntax example and drop behavior following immediately. No filler.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a 6-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the critical page_order and append_unlisted semantics but omits the overwrite/output_path behavior that determines where results land and whether the input is modified.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0% across 6 parameters, but the description compensates well for the most complex one, page_order, with concrete syntax examples ('3,1,2', '5-1', 'last,1-4') and explains append_unlisted. It leaves password, overwrite, input_path, and output_path entirely unexplained.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States specific actions (reorder/duplicate/reverse) on a specific resource (pages), which clearly distinguishes it from siblings like delete_pages, extract_pages, and rotate_pages. An agent can tell what it does without opening the schema.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Usage is implied by the actions described, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance or comparison to alternatives such as extract_pages (subset selection) or rotate_pages. The agent must infer the selection criteria from context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.