ParseJet - Universal File & URL Parser

parse_file

Extract text from local files including PDF, DOCX, images, and more by uploading to ParseJet. Get structured content output in text or markdown format.

Instructions

Parse a local file (PDF, DOCX, image, etc.) by uploading it to ParseJet and extracting its content.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "file_path": "<file_path>"
    },
    "name": "parse_file"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`file_path`	Yes	Absolute path to the file on disk
`output_format`	No	Output format: 'text' or 'markdown'	text

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.1Apr 17, 2026

TDQS

B3.1/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It mentions the external dependency (ParseJet) but fails to disclose critical behaviors such as file size limits, supported formats beyond examples, error handling, or whether it modifies the file. This is insufficient for safe agent use.

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?

The description is a single, clear sentence with no fluff. However, it could be marginally improved by front-loading the action and separating the method detail for quicker comprehension.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the complexity of file parsing and the absence of an output schema, the description should specify the return value (e.g., extracted text). It only says 'extracting its content' but lacks details on format, size, or potential failures. The description feels incomplete for an agent to fully understand the tool's behavior.

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 description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds 'local file' context but does not elaborate on the parameters beyond what the schema already provides, such as constraints or usage tips.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the verb 'Parse' and the resource 'local file', listing supported types (PDF, DOCX, image, etc.) and the method (uploading to ParseJet). It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools that handle URLs or transcripts.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like parse_url or get_youtube_transcript. It does not mention any prerequisites, limitations, or contexts where the tool is inappropriate.

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

Deploy Server