Skip to main content
Glama
theluckystrike

mcp-office-suite

by theluckystrike
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Hybrid

Rotate pages

pdf_rotate

Rotate PDF pages by 90-degree increments clockwise or counterclockwise and save as a new file, useful for correcting sideways scans.

Instructions

Call this tool to turn pages by a multiple of 90 degrees, clockwise for positive. Rotation is added to whatever the page already had, for a sideways scan. Writes a new file. Free tier: files up to 30 pages.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pathYesThe source PDF
pagesNoWhich pages to turn, e.g. "1" or "2,4-6". Omit for every page
degreesYes90, 180, 270 or -90. Positive turns clockwise. Added to the page's existing rotation
out_pathYesWhere to write the rotated PDF
overwriteNoReplace out_path if it exists. Default false

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.20.0

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare the safety profile (readOnly=false, destructive=false), and the description adds genuinely useful behavior: rotation is additive to existing page rotation and a new file is written rather than in-place editing. It also discloses a 'Free tier: files up to 30 pages' operational limit, which structured fields do not capture.

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?

Four short sentences with the core action front-loaded and the tier limit placed last. The opening 'Call this tool to' is mild filler, but there is no real waste.

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?

For a 5-param mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the essentials an agent needs: additive rotation behavior, new-file output, and a free-tier size cap. Page-range and overwrite semantics live in the schema, which is acceptable at full coverage.

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 coverage is 100%, so all five parameters are already documented, including the additive-rotation note and the 90/180/270/-90 values. The description largely restates those semantics (multiple-of-90, clockwise-for-positive) rather than adding new meaning, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('turn pages by a multiple of 90 degrees') and even clarifies the direction convention. However, it never distinguishes itself from the many pdf_* siblings (pdf_reorder, pdf_stamp, pdf_pages), so an agent must infer the difference on its own.

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?

Usage is only implied via the phrase 'for a sideways scan.' There is no explicit when-to-use, no when-not-to-use, and no named alternative among the large pdf_* family, leaving selection guidance thin.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools