SnapRender
Server Details
Screenshot any website with one API call PNG, JPEG, WebP, or PDF. Custom viewports, device emulation, ad blocking, dark mode, and smart caching.
- Status
- Healthy
- Last Tested
- Transport
- Streamable HTTP
- URL
Glama MCP Gateway
Connect through Glama MCP Gateway for full control over tool access and complete visibility into every call.
Full call logging
Every tool call is logged with complete inputs and outputs, so you can debug issues and audit what your agents are doing.
Tool access control
Enable or disable individual tools per connector, so you decide what your agents can and cannot do.
Managed credentials
Glama handles OAuth flows, token storage, and automatic rotation, so credentials never expire on your clients.
Usage analytics
See which tools your agents call, how often, and when, so you can understand usage patterns and catch anomalies.
Tool Definition Quality
Average 4.1/5 across 11 of 11 tools scored.
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: batch vs single screenshots, cache checking, content extraction, webhook management, usage queries, and signed URL generation. No two tools overlap in functionality.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern (e.g., take_screenshot, create_webhook, list_webhooks), making it easy to predict tool behavior from the name.
11 tools is well-scoped for a screenshot service, covering capturing (single and batch), caching, content extraction, webhook management, usage tracking, and signed URLs without unnecessary bloat.
The tool set covers the core screenshot lifecycle and webhook integration well. Minor gaps include no way to cancel a batch job or list past screenshots, but these are not critical for typical workflows.
Available Tools
11 toolsbatch_screenshotsAInspect
Create a batch screenshot job for multiple URLs (1-50). Returns immediately with a job ID. Use get_batch_status to poll for results (wait 2-5 seconds between polls). All URLs share the same screenshot options. Each URL consumes one credit; failed URLs get credits rolled back.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| urls | Yes | Array of URLs to capture (1-50) | |
| delay | No | Milliseconds to wait after load (default: 0) | |
| width | No | Viewport width in pixels (default: 1280) | |
| device | No | Device preset for emulation | |
| format | No | Output format (default: png) | |
| height | No | Viewport height in pixels (default: 800) | |
| quality | No | Image quality (default: 90) | |
| block_ads | No | Block ads (default: true) | |
| dark_mode | No | Enable dark mode (default: false) | |
| full_page | No | Capture entire scrollable page (default: false) | |
| user_agent | No | Custom user agent | |
| click_selector | No | CSS selector to click | |
| hide_selectors | No | CSS selectors to hide | |
| block_cookie_banners | No | Remove cookie banners (default: true) |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds significant behavioral context beyond annotations: it explains the asynchronous nature (returns immediately with job ID), polling requirement, credit consumption per URL, and rollback for failed URLs. Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false (mutation) and destructiveHint=false, which align well.
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 (3 sentences), front-loaded with the core purpose, and contains no fluff. Every sentence adds value: purpose, workflow, and credit/rollback behavior.
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 complexity (14 parameters, 1 required), the description competently covers purpose, polling workflow, credit implications, and failure behavior. No output schema is present, but the description correctly indicates the return type (job ID) without needing to specify the full response format.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already provides parameter details. The description adds context that all URLs share the same options, but does not elaborate on individual parameters beyond what the schema offers. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 tool creates a batch screenshot job for multiple URLs (1-50) and returns immediately with a job ID, distinguishing it from the sibling tools like 'take_screenshot' (single URL) and 'get_batch_status' (polling).
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 explicitly provides context on when to use this tool (multiple URLs, polling with get_batch_status, wait 2-5 seconds between polls) and mentions credit consumption and rollback behavior. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or discuss alternative tools beyond polling.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
check_screenshot_cacheARead-onlyInspect
Check if a screenshot is already cached without capturing a new one. Does not count against your quota.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | URL to check cache status for (must start with http:// or https://) | |
| format | No | Output format to check cache for (default: png) |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds the behavioral trait that it does not count against quota, which is useful context beyond the annotations.
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 extremely concise with two front-loaded sentences that convey the core purpose and a key usage hint. No redundant information.
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 read-only cache check tool with well-annotated safety profile and sibling tools, the description is adequate. It does not describe the return format, but the tool's simplicity compensates.
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?
Schema coverage is 100% with both parameters described in JSON Schema. The description adds no additional meaning or usage details for the parameters beyond what the schema already provides.
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 verb 'check' and resource 'screenshot cache', and distinguishes from sibling tools like 'take_screenshot' by noting 'without capturing a new one'.
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 implies usage when you want to avoid quota consumption by stating 'Does not count against your quota'. It implicitly contrasts with capture tools, but does not explicitly list when not to use or name alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
create_webhookAInspect
Create a webhook subscription for event notifications. Events: screenshot.completed (batch job done), quota.warning (80% used), quota.exceeded (100% used). Max 5 webhooks per account. Payloads are signed with HMAC-SHA256. Save the returned secret to verify signatures.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | Webhook endpoint URL. Must be a public HTTPS URL. | |
| events | Yes | Events to subscribe to |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false) are consistent. Description adds behavioral details beyond annotations: max 5 webhooks per account, payloads HMAC-SHA256 signed, and the need to save the returned secret. This fully informs the agent.
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?
Three sentences cover purpose, events/limit, and signature handling. No extraneous words, but could be slightly more structured (e.g., separating behavioral notes). Still well within good conciseness.
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 2-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers all necessary context: purpose, events, account limit, and post-creation action. No gaps identified.
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?
Input schema has 100% coverage with clear descriptions for url and events. The description does not add significant meaning beyond the schema's enum and descriptions, so baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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 'Create a webhook subscription for event notifications,' lists specific events (screenshot.completed, quota.warning, quota.exceeded), and mentions the account limit of 5. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like delete_webhook and list_webhooks.
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?
Provides explicit context: available events, maximum webhooks per account (5), and instruction to save the returned secret for signature verification. Does not explicitly state when not to use, but the creation context is clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
delete_webhookADestructiveInspect
Delete a webhook subscription by ID. This cannot be undone.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| webhook_id | Yes | The webhook ID to delete (from list_webhooks) |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate destructive nature (destructiveHint: true). Description adds 'This cannot be undone' which reinforces but does not add substantial new behavioral context beyond annotations.
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?
Extremely concise with two short sentences that convey the essential information without any unnecessary 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 deletion tool with one parameter and destructive hint, the description adequately covers purpose and permanence. Could optionally mention expected return value or confirmation, but not necessary given no output schema.
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?
Schema coverage is 100% and the input schema already provides a clear description for webhook_id. The tool description does not add additional parameter semantics beyond what is in the schema.
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 (Delete) and resource (webhook subscription by ID), distinguishing it from sibling tools like create_webhook and list_webhooks.
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?
Provides a warning about irreversibility but lacks explicit guidance on when to use vs alternatives like list_webhooks or test_webhook. The schema description hints at using the ID from list_webhooks, but not directly in the tool description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
extract_contentARead-onlyInspect
Extract content from a web page. Returns structured data based on the extraction type. Supports: markdown (readable content), text (plain text), html (raw HTML), article (structured with title/author/excerpt), links (all page links), metadata (OG tags, title, description).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | URL to extract content from (must start with http:// or https://) | |
| type | No | Extraction type (default: markdown) | |
| delay | No | Milliseconds to wait after page load (default: 0) | |
| selector | No | CSS selector to scope extraction to a specific element | |
| block_ads | No | Block advertisements and trackers (default: true) | |
| max_length | No | Maximum content length in characters (default: 100000) | |
| block_cookie_banners | No | Remove cookie consent banners (default: true) |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, but the description does not add behavioral context beyond listing extraction types. It fails to mention handling of JavaScript-heavy sites, rate limits, or response structure details, leaving some transparency gaps.
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 extremely concise: two sentences covering purpose and supported types. Every word adds value, and the structure is clear and front-loaded.
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 complexity (7 parameters, no output schema), the description adequately covers the extraction types and their outputs. It is missing guidance on when to use specific types, but overall it provides enough context for an AI agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.
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?
Schema coverage is 100% with all parameters described. The description adds meaning to the 'type' parameter by explaining what each enum value returns (e.g., 'structured with title/author/excerpt' for article). Other parameters rely on schema, but the added detail for type is valuable.
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 specifies the verb 'Extract content' and the resource 'from a web page', and lists the supported extraction types (markdown, text, html, article, links, metadata). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like take_screenshot which capture visual representations.
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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., take_screenshot for visual, get_batch_status for checking results). The purpose is implied, but there is no direct guidance on when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_batch_statusARead-onlyInspect
Get the status of a batch screenshot job. Poll this until status is 'completed' or 'failed' (wait 2-5 seconds between polls). Completed items include presigned download URLs valid for 24 hours.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| job_id | Yes | The batch job ID returned by batch_screenshots |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and description adds extra context about polling behavior and presigned URL validity (24 hours), enhancing transparency without contradiction.
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?
Two sentences, front-loaded with purpose, no wasted words. Every sentence provides essential information (what, how, and what to expect).
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?
Despite lacking output schema, description explains response contents (status strings, presigned URLs for completed items) and polling behavior, which is sufficient for this simple tool with good annotations.
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?
Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. Description does not add new parameter info beyond what the schema already states (job_id as batch job ID from batch_screenshots).
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?
Description uses specific verb 'Get' and resource 'status of a batch screenshot job', clearly distinguishing from sibling tools like batch_screenshots (creates job) and check_screenshot_cache (checks cache).
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?
Explicit polling guidance: 'Poll this until status is completed or failed (wait 2-5 seconds between polls)'. Does not explicitly state when not to use, but the guidance is clear and actionable.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_usageARead-onlyInspect
Get current month's screenshot usage statistics including screenshots used, limit, and remaining quota.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| month | No | Month to query in YYYY-MM format (default: current month) |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds what fields are returned but does not disclose additional behavioral traits like rate limits or authentication requirements. It adds value but is not exhaustive.
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 a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads key information. No extraneous 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?
Given the tool's simplicity, no output schema, and one optional parameter, the description sufficiently explains what the tool returns (three fields) and how it works. It's complete enough for an agent to understand the tool's function.
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?
Schema coverage is 100% for the 'month' parameter, but the description adds meaning by listing the returned fields (screenshots used, limit, remaining quota) that are not in the schema. This provides context beyond the parameter alone, though it slightly underrepresents the month parameter's flexibility.
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 'Get current month's screenshot usage statistics' with specific fields (screenshots used, limit, remaining quota). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like take_screenshot or list_webhooks, which serve different purposes.
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 implies the tool is for querying usage statistics but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use it over alternatives or any prerequisites/context. Usage is implied but lacks explicit direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
list_webhooksARead-onlyInspect
List all webhook subscriptions on your account. Returns webhook IDs, URLs, subscribed events, and creation dates.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true. Description adds that it returns specific fields, which is helpful but not deep behavioral detail like pagination. No contradiction.
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?
Single sentence, front-loaded with purpose, no unnecessary 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 list tool with no parameters, the description covers purpose and output adequately. No missing context.
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?
No parameters in schema, so description doesn't need to add param details. Baseline 4 for zero-param tools.
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?
Clearly states the action (list), resource (webhook subscriptions), and return fields. Distinguishes from sibling tools like create_webhook and delete_webhook.
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?
No explicit guidance on when to use or alternatives. Usage is implied as listing subscriptions, but no when-not-to-use or comparison with other list tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
sign_screenshot_urlARead-onlyInspect
Generate a signed URL for a screenshot that can be used without an API key. Useful for embedding screenshots in emails, documents, or sharing with third parties. Signing is free, rendering the URL consumes one credit. URLs expire after the specified duration.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | URL to capture (must start with http:// or https://) | |
| delay | No | Milliseconds to wait after load (default: 0) | |
| width | No | Viewport width in pixels (default: 1280) | |
| device | No | Device preset for emulation | |
| format | No | Output format (default: png) | |
| height | No | Viewport height in pixels (default: 800) | |
| quality | No | Image quality (default: 90) | |
| block_ads | No | Block ads (default: true) | |
| dark_mode | No | Enable dark mode (default: false) | |
| full_page | No | Capture entire scrollable page (default: false) | |
| expires_in | No | URL validity in seconds, 60-2592000 (default: 86400 = 1 day) | |
| user_agent | No | Custom user agent | |
| click_selector | No | CSS selector to click | |
| hide_selectors | No | CSS selectors to hide | |
| block_cookie_banners | No | Remove cookie banners (default: true) |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable behavioral context: signing is free, rendering costs a credit, and URLs expire after a specified duration. This goes beyond annotations and helps the agent understand cost implications and lifetime.
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 three sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and each sentence adds value. No wasted words; perfectly concise.
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 15 parameters with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description adequately covers purpose, usage, and behavioral traits. It does not discuss return format (signed URL), but that is implicitly clear from the name and context. Slight room for improvement on output expectations.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the description does not need to reiterate parameter details. It adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 uses specific verbs ('generate a signed URL for a screenshot') and clearly states the resource and action. It differentiates from sibling tools like 'take_screenshot' by emphasizing the signing aspect and use case of sharing without API key.
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 explicitly states when to use the tool ('embedding screenshots in emails, documents, or sharing with third parties') and provides context about cost and expiration. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or suggest alternatives among siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
take_screenshotARead-onlyInspect
Capture a screenshot of any website. Returns the image as PNG, JPEG, WebP, or PDF. Supports device emulation (iPhone, Pixel, iPad), dark mode, ad blocking, cookie banner removal, full-page capture, and custom viewports.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | URL to capture (must start with http:// or https://) | |
| delay | No | Milliseconds to wait after page load (default: 0) | |
| width | No | Viewport width in pixels (default: 1280) | |
| device | No | Device preset for mobile/tablet emulation | |
| format | No | Output format (default: png) | |
| height | No | Viewport height in pixels (default: 800) | |
| quality | No | Image quality for JPEG/WebP, 1-100 (default: 90) | |
| block_ads | No | Block advertisements and trackers (default: true) | |
| dark_mode | No | Enable dark mode CSS emulation (default: false) | |
| full_page | No | Capture entire scrollable page (default: false) | |
| click_selector | No | CSS selector to click before capture | |
| hide_selectors | No | Comma-separated CSS selectors to hide before capture | |
| block_cookie_banners | No | Remove cookie consent banners (default: true) |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description adds context about supported features (device emulation, dark mode, etc.) but does not disclose behavioral traits like rate limits, page load delays, or error handling. It neither contradicts annotations nor adds critical behavioral details.
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 extremely concise: two sentences with no filler. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second lists features. Every word earns its place.
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 13 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the major feature areas (output formats, device emulation, full page, etc.). It does not explain return value structure or error scenarios, but for a capture tool with good annotations, this is mostly sufficient.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100% with each parameter having its own description. The tool description adds a high-level list of supported features (e.g., 'cookie banner removal') but does not provide detailed semantics beyond what the schema already offers. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 tool's purpose: 'Capture a screenshot of any website' with specific output formats (PNG, JPEG, WebP, PDF). This is a specific verb+resource pair that distinguishes it from sibling tools like batch_screenshots or extract_content.
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 lists many features but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., batch_screenshots for multiple URLs, check_screenshot_cache for cached versions, extract_content for text). No exclusions or context for selection are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
test_webhookAInspect
Send a test payload to a webhook endpoint to verify it receives events correctly. Returns the delivery status and HTTP response code.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| webhook_id | Yes | The webhook ID to test (from list_webhooks) |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations: it sends a test payload and returns delivery status and HTTP response code. Since annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, the description's mention of a test action with non-destructive consequences is appropriate and adds value.
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 two sentences, no filler, and front-loaded with the core action. Every word is necessary and informative.
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 with one parameter and no output schema, the description is complete: it explains the action, the return value (delivery status and HTTP code), and the parameter is fully described in the schema. Annotations provide additional safety context.
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?
Schema coverage is 100% with one parameter (webhook_id) described as 'The webhook ID to test (from list_webhooks)'. The description mentions 'webhook endpoint' but adds little beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema already fully documents the parameter.
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 tool's action: sending a test payload to a webhook endpoint to verify event reception. It names the specific verb 'send' and resource 'test payload', and distinguishes from sibling tools like create_webhook (creation) and list_webhooks (listing).
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 indicates the tool is used to verify that a webhook receives events correctly, providing clear context. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or suggest alternatives, such as checking webhook configuration via list_webhooks before testing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Claim this connector by publishing a /.well-known/glama.json file on your server's domain with the following structure:
{
"$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/connector.json",
"maintainers": [{ "email": "your-email@example.com" }]
}The email address must match the email associated with your Glama account. Once published, Glama will automatically detect and verify the file within a few minutes.
Control your server's listing on Glama, including description and metadata
Access analytics and receive server usage reports
Get monitoring and health status updates for your server
Feature your server to boost visibility and reach more users
For users:
Full audit trail – every tool call is logged with inputs and outputs for compliance and debugging
Granular tool control – enable or disable individual tools per connector to limit what your AI agents can do
Centralized credential management – store and rotate API keys and OAuth tokens in one place
Change alerts – get notified when a connector changes its schema, adds or removes tools, or updates tool definitions, so nothing breaks silently
For server owners:
Proven adoption – public usage metrics on your listing show real-world traction and build trust with prospective users
Tool-level analytics – see which tools are being used most, helping you prioritize development and documentation
Direct user feedback – users can report issues and suggest improvements through the listing, giving you a channel you would not have otherwise
The connector status is unhealthy when Glama is unable to successfully connect to the server. This can happen for several reasons:
The server is experiencing an outage
The URL of the server is wrong
Credentials required to access the server are missing or invalid
If you are the owner of this MCP connector and would like to make modifications to the listing, including providing test credentials for accessing the server, please contact support@glama.ai.
Discussions
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!