ShotAPI
Server Details
Screenshot and HTML Rendering MCP Server for AI Agents. Remote streamable-http endpoint for capturing screenshots and rendering HTML to images.
- Status
- Healthy
- Last Tested
- Transport
- Streamable HTTP
- URL
Glama MCP Gateway
Connect through Glama MCP Gateway for full control over tool access and complete visibility into every call.
Full call logging
Every tool call is logged with complete inputs and outputs, so you can debug issues and audit what your agents are doing.
Tool access control
Enable or disable individual tools per connector, so you decide what your agents can and cannot do.
Managed credentials
Glama handles OAuth flows, token storage, and automatic rotation, so credentials never expire on your clients.
Usage analytics
See which tools your agents call, how often, and when, so you can understand usage patterns and catch anomalies.
Tool Definition Quality
Average 4.2/5 across 3 of 3 tools scored.
Tools have distinct purposes: render converts HTML/CSS to image, screenshot captures configurable webpage screenshots, and screenshot_one_liner is a simplified quick capture. While the two screenshot tools overlap, their descriptions clearly differentiate the full-featured and simplified versions.
Two tools use single verbs (render, screenshot) while one uses a compound verb-noun (screenshot_one_liner). This inconsistency in naming convention could be mildly confusing, though the pattern is still readable.
With three tools, the set is well-scoped for the server's purpose of rendering and screenshotting web content. Each tool earns its place, covering code rendering and two levels of webpage capture without unnecessary bloat.
The tool surface covers the essential operations: rendering markup and capturing webpages with configurable options. A minor gap is the lack of output manipulation (e.g., PDF export), but the core workflow is complete and agents should have no dead ends.
Available Tools
3 toolsrenderAInspect
Render HTML/CSS code as an image. Turn any markup into a visual preview.
Useful for: previewing UI code, checking CSS layouts, turning design mockups into shareable images.
Supports <style> tags, inline CSS, and common HTML features.
Output is auto-cropped to content — no wasted blank space below.
Args:
html: The HTML/CSS code to render
width: Viewport width in pixels (default: 1280)
height: Viewport height in pixels — output auto-cropped to content (default: 720)
format: Image format — "jpeg" saves tokens, "png" for crisp text, "webp" smallest (default: "jpeg")
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| html | Yes | ||
| width | No | ||
| format | No | jpeg | |
| height | No |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses auto-crop, support for style tags and inline CSS, and trade-offs between image formats (jpeg saves tokens, png crisp, webp smallest). However, it omits error handling, size limits, or security constraints (e.g., external resources).
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?
Description is well-structured with bulleted args after a clear introductory paragraph. It front-loads purpose and use cases. Slightly verbose in parts (e.g., repeating 'auto-cropped' in three places) but generally efficient.
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 an output schema exists (confirmed via context signals), the description need not detail return values. It adequately covers purpose, usage scenarios, parameter behavior, and key behavioral traits for a rendering tool. No gaps apparent.
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 coverage is 0%, but the description fully compensates by explaining each parameter: html as code input, width/height as viewport dimensions with auto-crop, format with format-specific trade-offs. This adds critical context beyond the schema's bare property definitions.
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?
Description clearly states 'Render HTML/CSS code as an image' and elaborates 'Turn any markup into a visual preview.' This specific verb+resource combination distinguishes it from sibling tools like screenshot which capture existing pages.
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?
Provides explicit use cases (previewing UI, checking CSS layouts, turning mockups into shareable images) and notes auto-crop behavior. However, it lacks guidance on when not to use this tool versus siblings (screenshot, screenshot_one_liner) and does not list exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
screenshotAInspect
Capture a webpage screenshot with full control over viewport, format, and element selection.
Args:
url: The URL to screenshot
width: Viewport width in pixels (default: 1280)
height: Viewport height in pixels (default: 720)
fullpage: Capture the entire scrollable page instead of just the viewport (default: false)
format: Image format — "jpeg" saves tokens (~50KB), "png" for quality, "webp" smallest (default: "jpeg")
block_ads: Remove ads and cookie banners (default: true)
wait_for: CSS selector to wait for before capturing, e.g. ".main-content" to ensure content loaded
selector: CSS selector to capture only a specific element, e.g. ".hero" or "#pricing-table"
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | ||
| width | No | ||
| format | No | jpeg | |
| height | No | ||
| fullpage | No | ||
| selector | No | ||
| wait_for | No | ||
| block_ads | No |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It covers key behaviors like fullpage capture, ad blocking, waiting for selectors, and format implications (token cost). Adds useful context beyond parameter definitions.
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 moderately long but well-structured with bullet points. Each sentence adds value. Could be slightly more concise, but no 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 8 parameters, the description covers all relevant aspects for usage. Output schema exists (not shown), so return values are presumably explained there. Missing occasional edge-case info, but adequate overall.
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 coverage is 0%, but the description explains all 8 parameters with defaults, purpose, and examples (e.g., 'jpeg saves tokens (~50KB)', 'wait_for ensures content loaded'). Fully compensates for missing schema descriptions.
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 'Capture a webpage screenshot with full control' which is a specific verb and resource. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this tool from its siblings (render, screenshot_one_liner), so it loses one point for lack of differentiation.
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 explains each parameter but does not provide guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use instructions, leaving the agent to infer context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
screenshot_one_linerAInspect
Capture a webpage as a JPEG screenshot. The simplest way to see what a webpage looks like.
Use this when you need to quickly check a webpage's appearance, verify a design, or see content that requires rendering.
Returns a 1280x720 JPEG image (~50KB) with ads blocked.
Args:
url: The URL to screenshot (e.g. "https://example.com")
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Despite no annotations, the description discloses key behaviors: returns 1280x720 JPEG image (~50KB) with ads blocked. This is sufficient for a read-only, non-destructive tool.
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?
Extremely concise: three sentences plus one line for parameter description. Every sentence adds value, no filler.
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 the tool's simplicity and presence of an output schema, the description provides all necessary context: dimensions, file size, ad blocking, and usage hints.
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?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds an Args section explaining the 'url' parameter with an example format, which goes beyond the bare schema.
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 captures a webpage as a JPEG screenshot. It mentions 'simplest way' implying differentiation from siblings, but does not explicitly distinguish from the sibling 'screenshot'.
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?
Provides clear guidance on when to use: 'quickly check a webpage's appearance, verify a design, or see content that requires rendering.' Does not explicitly mention when not to use or alternatives, but gives context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Claim this connector by publishing a /.well-known/glama.json file on your server's domain with the following structure:
{
"$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/connector.json",
"maintainers": [{ "email": "your-email@example.com" }]
}The email address must match the email associated with your Glama account. Once published, Glama will automatically detect and verify the file within a few minutes.
Control your server's listing on Glama, including description and metadata
Access analytics and receive server usage reports
Get monitoring and health status updates for your server
Feature your server to boost visibility and reach more users
For users:
Full audit trail – every tool call is logged with inputs and outputs for compliance and debugging
Granular tool control – enable or disable individual tools per connector to limit what your AI agents can do
Centralized credential management – store and rotate API keys and OAuth tokens in one place
Change alerts – get notified when a connector changes its schema, adds or removes tools, or updates tool definitions, so nothing breaks silently
For server owners:
Proven adoption – public usage metrics on your listing show real-world traction and build trust with prospective users
Tool-level analytics – see which tools are being used most, helping you prioritize development and documentation
Direct user feedback – users can report issues and suggest improvements through the listing, giving you a channel you would not have otherwise
The connector status is unhealthy when Glama is unable to successfully connect to the server. This can happen for several reasons:
The server is experiencing an outage
The URL of the server is wrong
Credentials required to access the server are missing or invalid
If you are the owner of this MCP connector and would like to make modifications to the listing, including providing test credentials for accessing the server, please contact support@glama.ai.
Discussions
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!