Skip to main content
Glama

Render a batch of PDFs

render_batch

Render up to 100 documents in a single blocking call, each from its own template, HTML or URL, and get every result back in one response. Choose this over calling render_pdf in a loop whenever you have more than a couple of documents — it is one round trip, one quota reservation and one rate-limit charge. It does block: items render sequentially inside a 300-second budget, so expect to wait, and reach for render_async instead when you cannot. Returns { results: [...] } in request order, where each entry is either a finished render or an { error: { code, message } } — a partial batch is normal and successful items are still yours. The whole batch's quota is reserved up front, so a batch that would cross the monthly quota is rejected in full with 402 and nothing is rendered; call get_account first if you are near the limit. Items that would overrun the time budget come back as SERVICE_UNAVAILABLE having been neither rendered nor billed — retry just those in a smaller batch.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
itemsYes1-100 documents to render, in order. Results come back in this same order.

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The description discloses key behavioral traits beyond the annotations: it blocks, items render sequentially within a 300-second budget, partial batches are normal, the whole batch's quota is reserved up front (rejected with 402 if exceeded), and timed-out items return SERVICE_UNAVAILABLE without billing. This is thorough and consistent with the annotation (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false). 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.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is about 6 sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, and each sentence adds value (e.g., efficiency, blocking, quota, return format, error handling). It is compact yet informative. Minor redundancy could be trimmed, but overall very well-structured.

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?

Given the complexity (batch of 100, blocking, sequential, quota, partial failures) and no output schema, the description covers the return format, partial batch behavior, quota rejection, timeout handling, and retry advice. It does not detail the exact structure of a successful render result, but that is likely consistent with the sibling 'render_pdf' and the context is sufficient for an agent.

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?

The input schema has 100% coverage, so each parameter is already described in the schema. The description adds high-level context (e.g., order matters, partial results) but does not significantly expand on individual parameter meanings beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 immediately states the core action: 'Render up to 100 documents in a single blocking call, each from its own template, HTML or URL, and get every result back in one response.' It uses a specific verb ('render'), identifies the resource ('batch of PDFs'), and clearly distinguishes from siblings like 'render_pdf' and 'render_async'.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Choose this over calling render_pdf in a loop whenever you have more than a couple of documents' for efficiency, and 'reach for render_async instead when you cannot' wait for blocking. Also advises checking quota before using: 'call get_account first if you are near the limit.' This fully covers usage context and alternatives.

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

A4.2/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose with detailed descriptions that differentiate similar tools (e.g., render_pdf vs render_async vs render_batch, create_signature_request vs create_envelope). No two tools overlap in a way that would cause confusion.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tool names follow a consistent lower_snake_case verb_noun pattern (e.g., attest_artifact, convert_document, list_renders). No mixing of conventions or ambiguous verb choices.

Tool Count4/5

47 tools is high but reflects the broad scope of the platform (document generation, signing, auditing, scheduling, webhooks, verification). Some informational tools could be merged, but the count is still reasonable for the domain.

Completeness3/5

The tool set covers the core document lifecycle well but has notable gaps: no tool to delete renders, no tool to void/cancel signature requests, and no CRUD for templates (only list and schema). The inability to pause schedules via MCP is also a gap.

Resources