Render any public URL in a real browser (Chromium). Returns markdown text, a screenshot URL, and a human-checkable evidence page URL. $0.005 per call. No signup, no API key. x402 wallet required. Pass fullPage:true for the entire scrollable page (same price).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | Public https URL to render | |
| fullPage | No | Capture entire scrollable page (same $0.005) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With empty annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the headless Chromium execution, the returned artifacts (markdown, screenshot URL, evidence page URL), pricing, authentication model, and fullPage pricing behavior. It does not cover failure modes or rate limits, but for a straightforward render operation it is appropriately transparent.
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 tight sentences front-load the action, then specify outputs, then cover cost/auth and the optional fullPage behavior. There is no filler or redundancy.
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 two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description adequately explains call outcomes and requirements: what is rendered, what is returned, what it costs, and what auth is needed. Minor gaps like timeout or failure behavior do not prevent an agent from invoking it 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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters. The description's fullPage guidance and 'any public URL' phrasing mostly restate what the schema already says, adding little distinct semantic value.
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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Render any public URL in a real browser (Chromium)', and enumerates concrete outputs. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like inspect or scan, so it misses full sibling differentiation.
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 clear operational prerequisites (public URL, x402 wallet, no signup) and parameter guidance for fullPage. However, it does not state when to choose this tool over alternatives or mention any exclusion conditions, leaving usage routing mostly implied.
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.
Each tool has a clearly distinct role in the website lifecycle: upload, scan, inspect, check status, claim, edit, renew, connect domain, and run the full publish flow. Even publish_website, which orchestrates other steps, is clearly higher-level and wouldn't be confused with individual action tools.
All names are lowercase snake_case and mostly verb-first (claim, edit, inspect, renew, scan, upload_url, publish_website). A couple are noun-noun compounds like preview_status and connect_custom_hostname, but the overall pattern is predictable and readable.
Nine tools is a good scope for a website publishing/hosting service. Each tool covers an essential step without unnecessary redundancy, and the pipeline from upload to claim to renew is clearly represented.
The tool set covers the core workflow comprehensively: upload, scan, preview, claim, edit, renew, and custom domains. A minor gap is that there is no direct tool to check the live site's remaining lease time, which is relevant for renewal eligibility, though the workflow works around it through publish/renew context.