APIVerve

PDF to Image

PDFtoImage

Read-only

PDF to Image: PDF to Image renders the pages you choose from a PDF, uploaded or fetched from a URL, as PNG or JPG images and returns a download link for each, valid for 2 days, with its pixel size. The Free plan renders one page per call at 150 dpi; paid plans render up to 10 pages per call and can set the resolution from 72 to 300 dpi. (Cost: 10 credits)

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "PDFtoImage"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`dpi`	No	Resolution in dots per inch, from 72 to 300
`pdf`	No	The PDF file to render (up to 10 MB), or a public PDF URL
`pages`	No	Pages to render, as numbers and ranges such as 1-3,5; at most 10 per call on paid plans, 1 on the Free plan	1
`format`	No	Image format	png
`quality`	No	JPG quality from 1 to 100; ignored for PNG

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description
`data`	No
`error`	No	Error message, null on success
`status`	No	"ok" on success

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedNov 7, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint/openWorldHint annotations, the description discloses genuinely useful behavior: a download link per rendered page, link validity of 2 days, returned pixel size, plan-tier page caps, and a 10-credit cost. That is substantive operational context an agent cannot get from annotations. A 5 is withheld because it does not address failure modes such as invalid page ranges or unreachable URLs.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with what the tool does, then plan constraints, then cost. Every clause carries information (format, link lifetime, dpi bounds, credits) with no filler or repetition.

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

Completeness5/5

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

For a five-parameter conversion tool with full schema coverage, output schema, and non-destructive annotations, the description supplies everything needed to call it correctly: accepted source types, formats, page limits, resolution bounds, link lifetime, and cost. Return values are covered by the output schema, so the extra mention of links and pixel size is a bonus rather than a gap-filler.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline would be 3, but the description adds plan-dependent meaning the schema lacks: 150 dpi is the Free-plan value, the 72-300 range and 10-page cap apply to paid plans, and page selection is bounded per plan. That clarifies why default values behave differently between tiers, which the parameter descriptions alone do not convey.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description gives a specific verb and resource: it renders chosen PDF pages, whether uploaded or fetched from a URL, into PNG or JPG and returns per-page download links with pixel dimensions. The purpose is unmistakable. It stops short of a 5 only because it does not name or differentiate against adjacent siblings such as PDFtoText, OfficetoPDF, or HTMLtoImage, leaving the agent to infer the boundary.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

Usage context is present but implied: it explains that the Free plan handles one page at 150 dpi while paid plans allow up to 10 pages and a 72-300 dpi range. It never states explicitly when to pick this over sibling conversion tools, nor does it mention prerequisites for URL fetching (public accessibility, 10 MB cap is only in the schema).

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

All APIVerve tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.