render_html_to_pdfRender a full HTML document to a PDF. External subresources are blocked for safety — inline images/fonts as data: URIs. Returns a file_id (for chaining) and a ~1h download URL.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| html | Yes | The complete HTML document to render. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses the limitation of blocked external subresources and mentions the return values (file_id and download URL). Since there are no annotations, this description carries the full behavioral transparency burden and does so adequately, though it does not mention any potential side effects beyond the expected output.
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 concise, consisting of two clear sentences. It includes essential details (safety note, return values) without unnecessary fluff, making it efficient and well-structured.
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's simplicity, the description is complete enough: it explains the input, the main behavior, safety limitation, and the output format. There is no output schema, but the description provides sufficient context about what the caller will receive.
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 sole parameter 'html' is fully described in the schema, and the tool description does not add extra context beyond the schema's description. Since schema coverage is 100%, the baseline of 3 is appropriate; no additional semantic value is provided.
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 specific verb 'Render' and resource 'full HTML document to a PDF', making the tool's purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on HTML input, which is a distinct action among the listed PDF tools.
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?
It provides a safety note about blocking external subresources, implicitly guiding when to use this tool (for inline/data: URIs) and when to consider alternatives (e.g., url_to_pdf for external resources). However, it does not explicitly state the comparison with siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Most tools have clearly distinct purposes, such as extracting PDF text versus filling forms or rendering URLs to PDF versus screenshots. The only mild overlap is read_url and scrape_page, both fetching a URL, but their outputs are explicitly differentiated as clean Markdown versus raw HTML with metadata.
Names mostly follow a verb_noun pattern like extract_pdf_text, fill_pdf_form, and rotate_pdf. A few conversion tools use 'to' constructions (images_to_pdf, markdown_to_pdf, url_to_pdf) and some pluralize objects (merge_pdfs, select_pages), creating minor inconsistency but no real confusion.
With 15 tools, the set is at the upper edge of the ideal range and every tool serves a distinct, useful function within the PDF and URL processing domain. The count feels justified rather than excessive.
The PDF tooling covers creation from images and Markdown, text extraction, form filling and reading, merging, splitting, rotating, selecting pages, and watermarking. URL handling covers reading as Markdown, scraping raw HTML/metadata, generating PDFs, and taking screenshots, providing well-rounded coverage for the stated domain.