Updates PDF metadata like title, author, subject, keywords, creator, and producer, with optional password and overwrite controls. Use it to correct or standardize document properties.
Set metadata. fields keys: title, author, subject, keywords, creator, producer.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| fields | Yes | ||
| password | No | ||
| overwrite | No | ||
| input_path | Yes | ||
| output_path | 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 behavioral burden and does not meet it. It never says whether metadata is written in place or to output_path, what happens to existing tags by default, how 'overwrite' behaves, or that password-protected files require a password.
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?
Two short sentences, front-loaded and free of filler, but brevity here shades into under-specification rather than disciplined concision. The allowed-keys sentence is the only content-bearing part.
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 5-parameter mutation tool with a nested object, zero schema descriptions, no annotations, and no output schema, this is thin. The allow-list of metadata keys is helpful, but write semantics, path handling, and password/overwrite behavior are all missing.
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% for 5 parameters, so the description must compensate and largely fails. It usefully enumerates the permitted keys inside 'fields', but says nothing about input_path, output_path, overwrite, or password, or the in-place-vs-copy behavior they imply.
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?
'Set metadata' names a specific verb and resource, and the sibling set (get_metadata, pdf_info) makes the read/write distinction inferable. It does not explicitly contrast itself with get_metadata, but the operation is unambiguous.
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?
No statement of when to use this versus get_metadata or pdf_info, no prerequisites (e.g., needing to read metadata first, or encryption requirements). The agent must infer usage entirely from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.