parse_pdfParse PDF reports into Markdown with tables preserved, from local files or online URLs.
解析 PDF 报告为 Markdown（保留表格），本地文件或在线 URL 均可。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | No | 在线 PDF 的 URL（与 file_path 二选一） | |
| file_path | No | 本地 PDF 路径（与 url 二选一） | |
| max_pages | No | 最大解析页数，默认 30 | |
| extract_tables | No | 是否提取表格，默认 true |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the core function (parse to Markdown, preserve tables) but does not disclose potential issues like handling scanned PDFs, password protection, or error behavior. The presence of an output schema mitigates the lack of return-format details, but other behavioral traits remain undisclosed.
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 a single sentence that is front-loaded with the core purpose and scope. Every word earns its place; there is no fluff or repetition.
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?
The tool is relatively simple with four parameters, full schema coverage, and an output schema provided. The description covers the essential usage (local and URL, table preservation). Minor caveats like PDF size limits or authentication are not mentioned, but for typical use the description is sufficient.
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 four parameters (url, file_path, max_pages, extract_tables). The description does not add any extra meaning beyond the schema, but it also does not need to. Baseline 3 is appropriate given full coverage.
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 states a specific verb+resource: parse PDF to Markdown, preserving tables, and explicitly supports both local files and URLs. It clearly distinguishes from siblings like fetch_page or web_search, which are for web content, not PDFs. The purpose is unambiguous.
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 context (local vs URL) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives. It implies that for PDF files this is the tool, but no exclusions or alternative names are provided. The guidance is implicit rather than explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.