APIVerve

Website to PDF

WebsitetoPDF

Read-only

Website to PDF: Website to PDF renders any public web page into a PDF document from a submitted URL. It returns a temporary signed download link, unique filename, and expiration timestamp, with paid plans adding the page count, paper size, custom margins, landscape layout and background printing control. (Cost: 40 credits)

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "url": "<url>"
    },
    "name": "WebsitetoPDF"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`url`	Yes	The URL of the website to convert to PDF
`format`	No	Paper size	A4
`landscape`	No	Set to true for landscape orientation
`marginTop`	No	The top margin of the PDF in inches (e.g., 0.4)	0.4
`marginLeft`	No	The left margin of the PDF in inches (e.g., 0.4)	0.4
`marginRight`	No	The right margin of the PDF in inches (e.g., 0.4)	0.4
`marginBottom`	No	The bottom margin of the PDF in inches (e.g., 0.4)	0.4
`printBackground`	No	Print background colors and images; set false for an ink-saving document

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

A3.7/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, destructiveHint=false), the description discloses the return artifacts (temporary signed download link, unique filename, expiration timestamp), the credit cost, and the fact that several options are gated behind paid plans. It does not cover failure behavior for non-public or unreachable URLs, which is the main remaining gap.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single dense sentence front-loads what the tool does, then tacks on returns and the cost note. No redundant filler, though the second half packs multiple facts together and is slightly harder to scan.

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?

With an output schema available, the description needn't detail return values, yet it summarizes them anyway alongside cost and plan gating. For an 8-parameter conversion tool this is close to complete; only edge-case behavior for inaccessible URLs is unaddressed.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so all 8 parameters are already documented, giving a baseline of 3. The description does add non-obvious meaning by tying paper size, margins, landscape and background printing to paid plans, but it gives no hint on pagination, timeouts, or URL constraints.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('renders any public web page into a PDF document from a submitted URL'), which implicitly separates it from HTMLtoPDF/MarkdowntoPDF/OfficetoPDF that take non-URL sources. It never names those siblings, so the differentiation is inferred rather than explicit.

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?

The phrase 'any public web page' implies a scope restriction (no authenticated/intranet pages), and the cost line (40 credits) plus the paid-plan caveat give useful selection context. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no named alternative such as WebsiteScreenshot or WebsitetoText for agents deciding between output formats.

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.