pdf_countCounts pages in multiple PDF files, returning per-file counts and total, with unreadable files reported individually.
Page count per file plus the total, for any number of PDFs. Read-only. A file that cannot be read is reported per file; the others still count. Free tier: unlimited.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| paths | Yes | Paths to the PDF files |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.20.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It explicitly states 'Read-only' and explains error handling: unreadable files are reported per file while others still count. This provides useful transparency beyond basic functionality.
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?
The description is succinct and well-structured. It efficiently conveys the core functionality, additional behavior, and limitations without unnecessary verbosity, making it easy for an agent to parse and act upon.
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?
Given the simplicity of the tool and the absence of an output schema, the description provides comprehensive context. It covers the purpose, edge-case handling, safety (read-only), and usage limits (free tier), leaving no critical gaps for an agent to make an informed call.
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?
The schema already provides a description for 'paths' as 'Paths to the PDF files,' achieving 100% coverage. The tool description adds context by specifying 'any number of PDFs' and explaining how unreadable paths are handled, enriching the semantic understanding of the parameter.
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?
The description clearly states the tool's function: counting pages per file and providing a total for multiple PDFs. It distinctly identifies the resource (PDFs) and the operation (page counting), setting it apart from sibling tools like pdf_info or pdf_pages.
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?
The description implies usage by stating 'for any number of PDFs' and 'Read-only,' but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use this tool. The guidance is implicit rather than explicit, so it falls short of a perfect score.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.