Skip to main content
Glama

netcafe-docs

by com.ainetcafe

Convert a web page or HTML to PDF

convert_to_pdf
Read-onlyIdempotent

Print-quality PDF from a URL or raw HTML via self-hosted Gotenberg (headless Chromium). Returns a hosted PDF download URL. Example — GET https://ainetcafe.com/t/convert_to_pdf?url=https://example.com

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
urlNoPage URL to convert (either url or html is required).
htmlNoRaw HTML to convert (alternative to url).

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds that it returns a hosted PDF download URL and uses headless Chromium via Gotenberg, providing useful implementation context without contradicting the annotations.

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 two concise sentences plus an example. Every sentence adds value: core functionality, return format, and a concrete invocation example. No fluff or redundant content.

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?

For a simple 2-parameter tool with rich annotations and an output schema, the description covers input types, output format, and example invocation. It omits potential edge cases like URL accessibility requirements, but this is acceptable given the high contextual coverage from annotations and schema.

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?

The schema descriptions cover both parameters fully (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces 'URL or raw HTML' but does not add format constraints or edge-case behavior beyond what the schema already provides.

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 states 'Convert a web page or HTML to PDF' with a specific verb and resource, then clarifies 'Print-quality PDF from a URL or raw HTML via self-hosted Gotenberg'. This clearly differentiates it from sibling conversion tools like pdf_to_markdown, which reverse the direction.

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 implies usage through the example GET request and the phrase 'via self-hosted Gotenberg', but it does not explicitly state alternatives or when-not-to-use. The context is clear enough for an agent to select this tool for HTML-to-PDF needs.

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

All netcafe-docs toolsInspect
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

A3.7/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Each tool targets a unique operation—conversions, extractions, translations, and utilities like resume checking or redaction—with no meaningful overlap. The few similar tools (e.g., convert_to_pdf vs. xlsx_to_pdf) are clearly distinguished by input type.

Naming Consistency3/5

Naming mixes conventions: verb_noun (extract_tables, redact_text), noun_to_noun (xlsx_to_pdf, pptx_to_pdf), and unusual forms like doc_translate_cn and what_can_you_do. While snake_case is consistent, the verb/noun pattern is not, making the set slightly less predictable.

Tool Count3/5

With 23 tools, the server sits at the heavy end of the acceptable range. Every tool has a distinct purpose, but the spread across PDF handling, research, audio, and accounting utilities feels more like a miscellaneous collection than a focused suite, which could overwhelm agents.

Completeness4/5

The server covers a broad spectrum of document-processing tasks—conversion, extraction, translation, redaction, and validation—with few dead ends. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no PDF merge/split, no OCR for all scanned PDFs, no explicit delete/update for resources), but core workflows are well supported.

Resources