Skip to main content
Glama
zicez

MCP-PDF2MD

by zicez
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
Python
Hybrid

Server Quality Checklist

67%
Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

  • Latest release: v1.0.0

  • Disambiguation5/5

    The two tools have clearly distinct purposes: one handles local PDF files, while the other handles PDFs from URLs. There is no overlap in functionality, and the descriptions explicitly differentiate between file-based and URL-based inputs, making misselection unlikely.

    Naming Consistency5/5

    Both tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with 'convert_pdf_' as the prefix, followed by 'file' or 'url'. This predictable naming scheme makes it easy to understand their roles and maintain consistency across the tool set.

    Tool Count3/5

    With only 2 tools, the server feels thin for a PDF conversion domain, as it lacks operations like batch processing, configuration adjustments, or error handling tools. While the core conversion is covered, the limited scope may restrict agent workflows, placing it in the borderline range.

    Completeness3/5

    The server covers the basic conversion functionality for both local files and URLs, but there are notable gaps such as no tools for managing output directories, handling conversion errors, or providing status updates. This incomplete surface could lead to agent failures in more complex scenarios.

  • Average 4.2/5 across 2 of 2 tools scored.

    See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.

    • No community issues in the last 6 months
    • 0 commits in the last 12 weeks
    • No stable releases found
    • No critical vulnerability alerts
    • No high-severity vulnerability alerts
    • No code scanning findings
    • CI status not available

  • This repository is licensed under MIT License.

  • This repository includes a README.md file.

  • No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.

    Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.

  • Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.

  • If you are the author, simply .

    If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:

    {
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}

    Then . Browse examples.

  • Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

  • Behavior3/5

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

    With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes the conversion process, output format (Markdown), and storage behavior (saved in a new folder), but doesn't mention error handling, performance characteristics, file size limits, or permission requirements. It provides basic operational context but lacks comprehensive behavioral details.

    Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

    Conciseness5/5

    Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

    The description is efficiently structured with three focused sentences: purpose statement, parameter explanation, and return value description. Each sentence adds distinct value without redundancy. The information is front-loaded with the core functionality stated first.

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

    Completeness4/5

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

    Given the tool's moderate complexity (file conversion with storage implications), no annotations, and an output schema present, the description covers the essential operations well. It explains what the tool does, parameter usage, and mentions the return format (though output schema handles details). However, it could better address error cases or limitations given the file system operations involved.

    Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

    Parameters4/5

    Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

    The schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must fully compensate. It explains the 'file_path' parameter meaningfully, specifying it accepts 'a local PDF file or multiple paths separated by spaces, commas, or newlines,' which adds crucial semantic information beyond the schema's basic type declaration. However, it doesn't detail path format requirements or validation rules.

    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 specific action ('Convert a local PDF file to Markdown') and the resource ('PDF file'), distinguishing it from the sibling tool 'convert_pdf_url' which handles URLs rather than local files. The description explicitly mentions the output format and storage location, making the purpose unambiguous.

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

    Usage Guidelines4/5

    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 (for local PDF files) versus the sibling tool (for URLs), though it doesn't explicitly state 'when not to use' or mention alternative tools beyond the sibling. The guidance is sufficient to differentiate use cases but lacks explicit exclusions or prerequisites.

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

  • Behavior3/5

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

    With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: the conversion output is saved to a directory (--output-dir), and it handles multiple URLs. However, it misses details like error handling, rate limits, authentication needs, or file format specifics.

    Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

    Conciseness5/5

    Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

    The description is well-structured and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by specific sections for Args and Returns. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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

    Completeness4/5

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

    Given the tool's moderate complexity (conversion with output handling), no annotations, and an output schema present, the description is mostly complete. It covers purpose, parameters, and output behavior, but lacks some contextual details like prerequisites or error scenarios that could enhance agent understanding.

    Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

    Parameters4/5

    Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

    The schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaningful semantics: the 'url' parameter can be a single URL or multiple URLs separated by spaces, commas, or newlines, which clarifies usage beyond the basic schema. It doesn't detail URL validation or examples, keeping it from a perfect score.

    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 tool's purpose: converting PDFs from URLs to Markdown with specific output behavior. It uses precise verbs ('Convert', 'saved') and distinguishes from the sibling tool convert_pdf_file by specifying URL-based input rather than file-based input.

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

    Usage Guidelines4/5

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

    The description implicitly indicates when to use this tool (for URL-based PDF conversion) versus the sibling convert_pdf_file (for file-based conversion). However, it lacks explicit guidance on when not to use it or detailed alternatives beyond the sibling tool name.

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

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

  • Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
  • Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
  • Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

mcp-pdf2md MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Score Badge

mcp-pdf2md MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/zicez/mcp-pdf2md'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server