Jina AI Remote MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: it extracts elements using layout detection, returns base64-encoded images with metadata, and handles arXiv IDs or PDF URLs. However, it lacks details on permissions, rate limits, error handling, or output structure beyond metadata mention.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, with two sentences that efficiently convey purpose, context, and output. Every sentence adds value: the first defines the action and method, the second specifies use cases and return format, with zero wasted words.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is moderately complete for a 4-parameter tool. It covers purpose, input sources, and output format, but lacks details on behavioral constraints, error cases, or exact metadata structure. It's adequate but has gaps in transparency for a mutation-like extraction tool.

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 the schema fully documents all 4 parameters. The description adds no specific parameter semantics beyond implying the tool works with arXiv papers and PDF URLs, which is already covered in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate as 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?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose with specific verbs ('extract figures, tables, and equations') and resources ('PDF documents'), using layout detection. It distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing on visual element extraction from PDFs, unlike general search or read tools in the sibling list.

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 provides clear context for when to use this tool ('Perfect for extracting visual elements from academic papers on arXiv or any PDF URL'), but does not explicitly state when not to use it or name specific alternatives from the sibling tools. It implies usage for PDFs with visual content but lacks exclusion criteria.

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