Paperboy

Official

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

split_pdf

DestructiveIdempotent

Divide a PDF into separate files by page ranges such as 1-3;4-6, or create one file per page when ranges are omitted; supports password-protected documents.

Instructions

Split a PDF into several files.

ranges: semicolon-separated page specs, one file each, e.g. "1-3;4-6;7-". If omitted, every page becomes its own file. Needs the owner password if the PDF forbids document assembly.

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": "split_pdf"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`ranges`	No
`password`	No
`overwrite`	No
`input_path`	Yes
`output_dir`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`count`	Yes
`files`	Yes
`output_dir`	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": {
+    "count": {
+      "title": "Count",
+      "type": "integer"
+    },
+    "files": {
+      "items": {
+        "type": "string"
+      },
+      "title": "Files",
+      "type": "array"
+    },
+    "output_dir": {
+      "title": "Output Dir",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "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_dir",
+    "files",
+    "count"
+  ],
+  "title": "SplitResult",
+  "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 readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely non-obvious context: the owner password is required when the PDF forbids document assembly, and passwords can be set to "ask" so they never pass through chat. It does not say what happens to pre-existing files (the 'overwrite' parameter), which is the main destructive-behavior 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?

Front-loaded with the core action, then parameter notes in a compact two-paragraph form. Every sentence carries information. The trailing password note is slightly tangential but is a useful cross-cutting convention, so little is wasted.

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 values need no explanation. For a 5-parameter mutation tool, the description covers the two non-obvious parameters and the assembly-permission constraint well; only the overwrite semantics are left implicit, which is a minor but real gap.

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 well for 'ranges' (semicolon-separated page specs, one file each, with '1-3;4-6;7-' as an example) and for 'password' (the "ask" convention). It adds nothing for 'input_path', 'output_dir', and 'overwrite', leaving the default/error behavior of overwriting undocumented.

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 opening sentence gives a specific verb and resource: 'Split a PDF into several files.' That is unambiguous and an agent can act on it. It does not, however, differentiate itself from near-siblings such as extract_pages, so it is clear but not sibling-routing.

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?

It states the default behavior when 'ranges' is omitted (every page becomes its own file), which implies the when-to-use case for splitting. It never states when to prefer extract_pages or another sibling, and gives no prerequisites beyond the owner-password note. Usage is implied rather than spelled out.

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