Merge multiple PDF renders into one PDF document by passing an array of render IDs; return either a hosted URL or the file directly.
Merge multiple PDF renders into a single PDF document
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| host | No | If true, returns a hosted URL. If false, returns the file directly | |
| render_ids | Yes | Array of render IDs to merge |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.7.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already tell the agent this is a non-read-only, non-destructive, closed-world operation. The description adds nothing beyond that: it doesn't say whether the source renders are preserved, how the merged output is ordered, or whether this is synchronous for large sets.
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?
A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word earns its place and the action is stated immediately.
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 simple two-parameter tool with full schema coverage and a safety-carrying annotation set, the description is minimally adequate. However, merge semantics that an agent would want — ordering of the source documents and the fate of the originals — are absent.
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 100%, so both render_ids and the host flag are already documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning (e.g., that render_ids order determines page order), so the baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.
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 a specific verb (merge) and resource (PDF renders) with a clear outcome (single PDF document). It is distinguishable from sibling read/create tools, though it never explicitly names or contrasts with them.
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?
There is no statement of when this tool should be used versus alternatives (e.g., get_render for a single render, or create_render), nor any prerequisite such as the renders needing to already exist or be complete.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.