tool_render_pagesRender selected PDF pages as PNG images, with an option to return image content directly for visual review of complex layouts, charts, or scanned pages.
渲染指定页为 PNG。return_images=True 时直接返回图像内容块（供视觉查看复杂版面/图表/扫描页）。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| dpi | No | ||
| path | Yes | ||
| pages | No | 1 | |
| out_dir | No | ||
| overwrite | No | ||
| return_images | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.6Input schema / properties / overwriteAdded value: +{
+ "default": false,
+ "type": "boolean"
+}v0.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It reveals the core rendering behavior and the return_images=True mode, but it is silent on what happens by default (e.g., whether PNGs are written to out_dir), how overwrite behaves, and what the response looks like when return_images is false.
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 short and front-loaded: the main function appears first, and the return_images behavior is presented as a conditional addition. It is efficient, though the brevity comes at the cost of missing useful parameter and output context.
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 6 parameters, no schema descriptions, no annotations, and no output schema, this description is insufficient for reliable invocation. An agent would still need to infer how pages should be formatted, what dpi/out_dir/overwrite do, and what the tool returns in its default mode.
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% and there are 6 parameters, so the description must compensate. It only explains return_images, leaving dpi, pages syntax, out_dir, overwrite, and path semantics undocumented. The phrase '指定页' weakly hints at pages, but the key parameters are not explained.
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 action ('渲染指定页为 PNG' – render specified pages as PNG) with a specific verb and resource. It also explains the purpose of return_images for visual inspection, making the tool's function distinct from text-extraction and OCR siblings, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.
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 gives a conditional usage hint: use return_images=True for direct image content when visually inspecting complex layouts, charts, or scanned pages. However, it does not say when to prefer this tool over siblings such as extract_images or ocr_pdf, nor does it mention when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.