url_to_screenshotFetch a public http/https URL and capture a PNG screenshot. Set full_page for the entire scroll height. Returns a file_id and a ~1h download URL.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | The http/https URL to capture. | |
| full_page | No | Capture the full scroll height (default: viewport). |
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?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden of transparency. It discloses the output (file_id and ~1h download URL) and the input constraint (public URL), but it omits details about potential errors, timeout behavior, or side effects beyond the returned references. Still, the core behavior is well described.
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—two sentences—and front-loaded with the primary action. It avoids unnecessary details and directly covers the main behavior and key option, with no wasted words.
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?
For a simple tool, the description gives sufficient context: what input is expected, what output to expect, and the constraint on URL accessibility. It does not explain the file_id format, but that is likely not required for invocation, so the description is complete enough.
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?
Both parameters are explicitly described: url is the target to capture, and full_page controls scrolling. The description of full_page (default viewport) matches the schema's boolean type, providing clear semantics for the agent.
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 action (fetch and capture), the resource (a public http/https URL), and the output (PNG screenshot). It is distinct from sibling tools like url_to_pdf (which produces PDF) and scrape_page (which extracts data), making its purpose unambiguous.
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?
The description explains the core action and mentions the full_page option, but it does not explicitly contrast this tool with alternatives. An agent must infer when to choose a screenshot over a PDF or text extraction from the sibling list; the description alone does not provide explicit usage guidance.
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.