Paperboy

Official

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

repair_pdf

DestructiveIdempotent

Rebuild a damaged PDF's structure by reading and rewriting it; signed PDFs are refused because rewriting invalidates signatures.

Instructions

Rebuild a damaged PDF's structure by reading and rewriting it. Signed PDFs are refused (rewriting invalidates the signature).

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": "repair_pdf"
  }
}

Input Schema

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

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`pages`	Yes
`output`	Yes
`password_protected`	Yes
`user_password_changed`	Yes
`permissions_restricted`	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": {
+    "output": {
+      "title": "Output",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "pages": {
+      "title": "Pages",
+      "type": "integer"
+    },
+    "password_protected": {
+      "title": "Password Protected",
+      "type": "boolean"
+    },
+    "permissions_restricted": {
+      "title": "Permissions Restricted",
+      "type": "boolean"
+    },
+    "user_password_changed": {
+      "title": "User Password Changed",
+      "type": "boolean"
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "password_protected",
+    "permissions_restricted",
+    "user_password_changed",
+    "output",
+    "pages"
+  ],
+  "title": "RepairResult",
+  "type": "object"
+}

First observedv0.1.0Oct 21, 2026

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is partly covered. The description adds two things the annotations cannot: the signed-PDF refusal rule and the "ask" password flow that keeps secrets out of the chat transcript. It leaves unexplained what happens to the original file or how a failed rebuild is handled.

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?

Three short sentences, each carrying distinct information: what it does, when it refuses, and how the password sentinel works. The password note is placed last where it belongs, and nothing is repeated from structured fields.

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 values need no explanation, and the destructive/refusal behavior gets partial coverage. However, for a four-parameter destructive rewrite tool with zero schema descriptions, the definition never says whether the source file is modified in place or where output lands by default — a material omission for an agent about to run it.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning, yet only the password parameter is addressed (via the "ask" sentinel). input_path, output_path and especially overwrite — the parameter most entangled with destructiveHint=true — are left with nothing but their names and defaults.

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?

"Rebuild a damaged PDF's structure by reading and rewriting it" gives a specific verb (rebuild/rewrite) and resource (PDF structure), and the damaged-PDF qualifier separates it from routines like check_pdf or optimize_pdf. It stops short of naming a sibling for the non-repairable cases.

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?

The description states a real precondition/exclusion: signed PDFs are refused because rewriting invalidates signatures. That is actionable when-not guidance. It does not point to any alternative tool for signed documents or suggest checking a file first with a sibling.

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