HTML to Image

screenshot-url

Capture a live web page by URL as a PNG screenshot, or as an A4 vector PDF with format "pdf". Returns the rendered image plus a shareable CDN URL; PDF renders return the URL only. Consumes one credit per call.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`css`	No	Optional CSS to inject into the page before capture.
`dpi`	No	Scale factor / device pixel ratio (1-4) for higher-resolution output.
`url`	Yes	The fully-qualified URL of the page to capture (https://...).
`width`	No	Viewport width in pixels (1-5000). Defaults to 1920.
`format`	No	Output format. "png" (default) returns an image sized by width and height. "pdf" returns the page as an A4 portrait vector PDF with selectable, searchable text and automatic pagination; width, height, dpi, fullpage and selector are ignored. Use "pdf" to archive a page or produce a printable record. Use "png" for anything displayed at fixed pixel dimensions.
`height`	No	Viewport height in pixels (1-5000). Defaults to 1080.
`fullpage`	No	Capture the full scrollable page instead of just the viewport.
`ms_delay`	No	Milliseconds to wait before capturing (1-5000).
`selector`	No	Capture only the element matching this CSS selector.
`wait_for_selector`	No	Wait until this CSS selector is present before capturing.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`url`	Yes	Shareable CDN URL of the rendered file, at full resolution.
`format`	Yes	The output format that was rendered.
`credits_remaining`	Yes	Credits left on the plan after this render.

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

The description discloses important behavioral traits beyond the minimal annotation: credit consumption ('Consumes one credit per call'), return format differences (image+CDN URL vs. URL-only for PDF), and parameter restrictions for PDF renders. No contradictions with 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?

Two sentences cover the entire purpose, output, format choice, and cost. Every sentence is essential, and the action is front-loaded. No wasted words or redundancy.

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 tool with 10 parameters and an output schema, the description covers primary behavior (format differences, credit, return type). It lacks guidance on when to use vs. sibling, error conditions, or rate limits, but overall is adequate given the output schema exists.

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 the baseline is 3. The description does not add parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides; it focuses on output and credit details. No additional value for parameters.

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 clearly states 'Capture a live web page by URL as a PNG screenshot, or as an A4 vector PDF' – a specific verb and resource. However, it does not explicitly distinguish from the sibling tool 'generate-image-from-html', which would clarify when each is appropriate.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

The description provides internal guidance on PNG vs. PDF usage but offers no context for when to use this tool versus the sibling tool. It does not state prerequisites, limitations, or alternatives, leaving the agent to infer from the name alone.

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

All HTML to Image 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

A4.1/5.0

Disambiguation4/5

Both tools generate visual output, but one renders provided HTML and the other captures a live URL. While both produce images/PDFs, the input method is distinct enough to allow an agent to choose correctly.

Naming Consistency5/5

Both tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern: 'generate-image-from-html' and 'screenshot-url'. The naming clearly indicates the action and the input type, making them predictable and easy to understand.

Tool Count5/5

With only two tools, the set is extremely focused for a server dedicated to converting HTML/URLs to images. Each tool serves a clear, non-overlapping purpose, making the count perfectly appropriate for the narrow scope.

Completeness4/5

The tool set covers the two primary use cases: rendering static HTML and capturing live URLs. Missing potential features like batch conversion or custom viewport sizes, but the core functionality for an image generation server is well-covered.

Resources

Need Help?