mineru-docparse-mcp

mineru_parse_document

Upload documents (PDF, DOCX, PPTX, XLSX, images, web pages) and extract structured content as Markdown or JSON.

Instructions

将 PDF · DOCX · PPTX · XLSX · 图片 · 网页转为结构化 Markdown / JSON

上传文件到 MinerU DocParse API 进行内容提取

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": {
      "params": "<params>"
    },
    "name": "mineru_parse_document"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`params`	Yes	mineru_parse_document 的输入参数，对应官方 POST /file_parse 接口。字段及默认值与官方 OpenAPI schema 一致，仅 response_format_zip 默认改为 True。

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Jul 11, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It mentions uploading to an API but does not disclose side effects, authentication requirements, rate limits, or non-destructive nature. Transparency is minimal.

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 very concise (two sentences), front-loading the core function and supported formats. Every word adds value, though it could be slightly more structured.

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 tool's complexity (multiple backends, many parameters, nested input), the description is too brief. It lacks a high-level overview of backends, output behavior, and potential caveats, leaving the agent to infer from the schema alone.

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 3 is appropriate. The tool description does not add detail beyond the schema, but the nested params description within the input schema provides comprehensive parameter meanings.

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?

The description clearly states the tool converts PDF, DOCX, PPTX, XLSX, images, and web pages to structured Markdown/JSON, and uploads to the MinerU DocParse API for extraction. It differentiates from the sibling health check tool by its specific parsing function.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor are there any prerequisites or exclusions. The description only defines the action without contextual usage advice.

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

Deploy Server