Prince Cloud

url_to_pdf

Read-only

Fetch a URL and convert it to PDF using Prince.

Args:
    url: URL of a document to fetch and convert
    style: Additional CSS to apply (inline stylesheet content)
    page_size: Page size (e.g., A4, letter)
    page_margin: Page margins (e.g., 20mm)
    javascript: Enable JavaScript execution
    pdf_profile: PDF profile (e.g., PDF/A-3b, PDF/UA-1)
    output_filename: Output filename for the PDF (default: "output.pdf")

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`url`	Yes
`style`	No
`page_size`	No
`javascript`	No
`page_margin`	No
`pdf_profile`	No
`output_filename`	No

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

The description adds valuable context beyond the annotations by explaining that the tool fetches a URL and uses Prince, plus it gives details about JavaScript execution and PDF profiles. Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, but the description enriches these with meaningful conversion specifics without contradicting them.

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 concise and well-structured: a one-sentence summary followed by a clean, tabular args list. Every line adds value, with no redundant phrases or extraneous details.

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

Completeness3/5

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

The description covers all parameters but omits the return format (e.g., PDF binary or saved file path) and error behavior, especially since there is no output schema. It also lacks guidance on prerequisites like network access or Prince installation, leaving some gaps for a moderately complex tool.

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

Parameters5/5

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

With 0% schema description coverage, the description carries the full burden of explaining parameters. It provides clear, concise explanations for all seven parameters, including examples for page_size, page_margin, and pdf_profile, making the schema far more understandable.

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 function with a specific verb and resource: 'Fetch a URL and convert it to PDF using Prince.' This distinctly differentiates it from sibling tools html_to_pdf and markdown_to_pdf, which handle HTML and markdown inputs respectively.

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 clearly implies the tool is for URLs, providing clear context on when to use it. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, such as 'use html_to_pdf for HTML strings,' so it falls short of a 5.

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

All Prince Cloud tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Disambiguation5/5

Each tool targets a distinctly different input source: HTML content, Markdown content, and a URL. There is no overlap in purpose, making selection unambiguous.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tool names follow the exact same verb_noun pattern: html_to_pdf, markdown_to_pdf, url_to_pdf. This is perfectly consistent and predictable.

Tool Count5/5

With only 3 tools, the server is tightly scoped to its core function of PDF conversion from three common input types. Each tool earns its place.

Completeness4/5

The set covers the most common conversion inputs (HTML, Markdown, URL). A minor gap is lack of direct file input, but these three cover the majority of use cases.

Resources

Need Help?