get_screenshot_batch
Read the state and per URL results of a batch created by this client, including the download URL once anything has rendered.
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes |
url2image
TDQS
A3.8/5.0
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses it's a read operation that returns state, per-URL results, and download URLs after rendering. No destructive behavior mentioned, which matches expected read-only nature.
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?
Single sentence, no unnecessary words. Front-loaded and efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no output schema and no annotations, the description is adequate but could be more complete. It mentions state, per-URL results, and download URLs, but doesn't describe the state values or result structure.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The only parameter 'id' is not described in the schema (0% coverage). The description adds 'created by this client', but lacks details on what the ID represents or format constraints. Schema includes pattern and examples, but description doesn't explain semantics.
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?
The description clearly states the tool reads state and per URL results of a batch, including download URLs after rendering. It distinguishes from sibling tools like create_screenshot_batch and list_sample_captures.
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 implied (use after creating a batch), but no explicit when-to-use or alternatives are given. Siblings suggest it's the read counterpart, but that's not stated.
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.
TDQS
A4/5.0
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: payment, screenshot rendering, account balance, batch status polling, and sample preview. No overlap or ambiguity.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tool names follow a consistent 'verb_noun' pattern in snake_case, such as 'create_screenshot_batch' and 'get_account_balance', making the set predictable.
Tool Count5/5
With 5 tools covering core functionalities (screenshot creation, status checking, account management, and payment), the set is well-scoped without being too sparse or overwhelming.
Completeness4/5
The tool surface covers the main workflow: creating batches, checking results, managing credits, and purchasing. A minor gap is the lack of a cancel or delete operation for batches, but this is not critical.