Render HTML, URLs, and templates to PDF. AI drafts templates and fixes them from logs.
Scored across 3 tools
The three tools have clearly distinct purposes: checking status, initiating login, and revoking login. There is no overlap or confusion between them. Each tool addresses a unique aspect of the authentication lifecycle.
All tools follow the same prefix 'leafwright_' followed by a lowercase verb or verb-noun phrase (auth_status, login, logout). The naming pattern is uniform and predictable, making it easy to infer tool behavior from the name alone.
With only three tools, the server is tightly scoped to authentication management. This is an appropriate size for such a narrow domain, as each tool is essential and there is no bloat or redundancy.
The tool set covers the full authentication lifecycle: checking status, performing login, and logout. There are no obvious missing operations for the stated purpose, and the tools provide a complete workflow for managing authentication state.
Check whether Leafwright MCP is authenticated. Completes a pending browser login if approved.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| token | No | |
| status | Yes | |
| next_step | No | |
| user_code | No | |
| expires_at | No | |
| token_source | No | |
| active_project_id | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description explicitly reveals that the tool both checks authentication status and completes a pending login if approved. This fully covers the behavioral side effects, especially given that readOnlyHint is false.
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?
Two sentences, no fluff. Each sentence adds essential information: the check and the conditional completion of a login. Perfectly concise.
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?
The description gives enough context for the tool's function, including the condition 'if approved'. It does not elaborate on what 'approved' means or what happens when not approved, but within the scope of a simple status-check tool, it is adequate.
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?
There are no parameters, and the description does not need to explain any. The schema is empty, and the tool's behavior is fully described without parameter references.
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 primary action ('Check whether authenticated') and also mentions an additional behavior ('Completes a pending browser login if approved'). Both are explicit, though the dual purpose could be slightly ambiguous about whether both always occur.
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?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling tools (login/logout). The phrase 'if approved' hints at completing a login flow, but there is no clear direction on conditions or alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Start a browser login flow for Leafwright MCP. Open the returned URL, choose an organization and project, then call leafwright_auth_status.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| client_name | No | Optional client name shown in Leafwright. |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| status | Yes | |
| next_step | Yes | |
| user_code | Yes | |
| expires_at | Yes | |
| verification_url | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses that this tool starts an interactive browser flow and returns a URL requiring manual follow-up. Annotations already indicate a non-read-only, non-idempotent operation, and the description adds the important detail that the agent must open the URL and that user interaction is required.
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?
Two sentences convey the action, the returned artifact, the required user steps, and the next tool call with no filler. It is front-loaded with the core action and ends with an actionable directive.
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?
For a login-flow starter with one optional parameter, an output schema, and clear annotations, the description covers the full workflow: what the tool does, what to do with its result, and what to call next. Nothing essential is missing.
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 description coverage is 100%: the only parameter, client_name, is already described as an optional string shown in Leafwright. The description adds no further parameter-specific meaning, so the baseline of 3 applies.
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 states a specific action ('Start a browser login flow') tied to a clear resource ('Leafwright MCP'). It also names the follow-up tool, leafwright_auth_status, which distinguishes it from sibling tools by signaling the beginning of the auth lifecycle.
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 gives clear sequential instructions: open the returned URL, choose an organization and project, then call leafwright_auth_status. It does not explicitly contrast this tool with leafwright_logout, but the intended workflow and next step are unambiguous.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Revoke the stored Leafwright MCP token and clear local auth state.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| status | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description explicitly mentions destructive actions ('revoke' and 'clear') which align with the destructiveHint=true annotation. It goes beyond the annotation by specifying exactly what is revoked and cleared, providing concrete behavioral detail. No contradictions with the idempotentHint=true annotation are present.
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 a single, concise sentence that conveys the entire purpose without any fluff. It is well-structured and gets straight to the point.
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 has no parameters and a simple, self-contained action, the description is fully complete. The output schema existence (true) is not detailed, but for a logout action, the return value is typically trivial and not necessary to describe. The description covers all necessary information for an agent to use the tool correctly.
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?
The tool has no parameters, so there is nothing to explain. The schema coverage is complete (100%), and the description adds no unnecessary information. This is a perfect score for parameter semantics.
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 action: revoke the stored token and clear local auth state. It precisely identifies the resource (Leafwright MCP token) and the operation, leaving no ambiguity about what the tool does.
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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as leafwright_auth_status or leafwright_login. It does not mention when logout is appropriate or when it should be avoided, leaving the decision entirely to the agent.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
leafwright_auth_statusleafwright_loginleafwright_logoutGenerate HTML to PDF documents in bulk or single — raw replacements or based on conditions, loops
Turn an HTML template plus JSON into a finished PDF: a quote, invoice, work order or certificate.
Generate images and PDFs from HTML/CSS, live websites, and reusable templates.
Generate PDFs from templates via AI chat. Works with Claude, ChatGPT, Cursor, and any MCP client.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
