Skip to main content
Glama

tariffmonkee-screenshot

Returns a full-page PNG screenshot of a URL, captured in a real rendered browser (JavaScript executed). The response body is the image, not JSON. Cached for 24 hours per URL; X-Cached and X-Fetched-At response headers report cache status and fetch time. Costs $0.01 per call via x402.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "url": "<url>"
    },
    "name": "tariffmonkee-screenshot"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
urlYesAbsolute http(s) URL of the page to screenshot.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does well: it discloses that the response body is a raw image rather than JSON, a 24-hour per-URL cache with X-Cached/X-Fetched-At headers, and a $0.01 x402 charge. It omits failure behavior, timeouts, and any page-size or rate limits, which keeps it short of a 5.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with what is returned, followed by the non-obvious response format and then operational facts (cache, cost). Nothing is padded and nothing important is buried.

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 one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the essentials an agent needs: output medium, rendering behavior, caching, and pricing. Only error and failure modes are unaddressed, which is a minor gap at this complexity level.

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 coverage is 100% for the single 'url' parameter, and the schema already specifies the absolute http(s) URL format. The description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and artifact ('Returns a full-page PNG screenshot of a URL') plus a differentiating qualifier ('captured in a real rendered browser, JavaScript executed'). An agent can tell this apart from sibling image/pdf or extract-style tools without opening the schema.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

Usage is only implied: the JS-rendering note hints this is the tool for pages needing client-side execution. It never says when to prefer it over siblings like tariffmonkee-pdf or tariffmonkee-extract-url, and gives no exclusions or prerequisites beyond requiring an absolute http(s) URL.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources