A
licenseA
qualityC
maintenanceEnables AI agents to fetch any web page as clean markdown or screenshot it, turning URLs into LLM-ready context.
2
11
MIT
Pagewatch
by dev.pagelens
Server Details
Read a URL as clean markdown, screenshot a website, url to PDF. Web access for agents, no signup.
- Status
- Healthy
- Last Tested
- Transport
- Streamable HTTP
- URL
- Repository
- toolshedlabs-hash/pagewatch-mcp
- GitHub Stars
- 0
- Server Listing
- pagewatch
Glama MCP Gateway
Connect through Glama MCP Gateway for full control over tool access and complete visibility into every call.
MCP client
Glama
MCP server
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.
100% free. Your data is private.
Tool Definition Quality
A4/5.0
Tool DescriptionsA
Average 4.1/5 across 5 of 5 tools scored. Lowest: 3.4/5.
Server CoherenceA
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool has a distinct purpose: balance checks credits, pdf converts pages to PDF, read_page extracts markdown, register creates API keys, and screenshot captures images. No overlapping functionality.
Naming Consistency4/5
Tool names are lowercase and descriptive, with 'read_page' using an underscore while others are single words. This minor inconsistency is easy to overlook but prevents a perfect score.
Tool Count5/5
Five tools cover the core needs of a web page tool: key management (balance, register), content extraction (read_page), and output formats (pdf, screenshot). The count is well-scoped for its purpose.
Completeness4/5
The tool set covers key lifecycle and primary page actions. A minor gap is the lack of a tool to delete or manage keys, but balance and register provide sufficient functionality.
Available Tools
5 toolsbalanceAInspect
Check the remaining free credits on your pagewatch key, plus the per-call prices and, if the key is not switched on yet, the free activation link to give your human. Pass api_key if you did not configure an Authorization header.
api_key: an existing pagewatch bearer token, optional.
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| api_key | No |
Tool Definition Quality
A4.5/5.0
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses returned data (credits, prices, activation link) and optional api_key. Implicitly read-only, but does not explicitly state safety or potential side effects. Adequate for a balance query.
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?
Exceptionally concise: two sentences plus parameter line. Front-loaded with main action, no wasted words.
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 single optional param, no output schema, and no annotations, description covers core functionality and key condition. Could mention error handling (e.g., invalid key) but not critical for selection. Sibling tools unrelated, so no confusion.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema has 0% description coverage, but description adds full meaning: 'api_key: an existing pagewatch bearer token, optional.' Clearly explains purpose and when to use, compensating for schema gap.
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's verb ('check') and resource ('remaining free credits, per-call prices, activation link'). It distinguishes from siblings (none check balance) and specifies the output scope.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides clear condition for passing api_key ('if you did not configure an Authorization header'). No explicit alternatives or when-not-to-use mentioned, but context is sufficient for a simple check tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
pdfBInspect
Render a web page (by url) or raw html into a pdf and return it as base64 pdf data. Provide exactly one of url or html. Respects robots.txt for url input. Pass api_key if you have a pagewatch key, otherwise a free trial key is created for you and returned.
url: the page to convert, optional.
html: raw html to convert, optional (provide url or html, not both).
api_key: an existing pagewatch bearer token, optional.
paper: A4, Letter, Legal or A3.
landscape: landscape orientation.
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | No | ||
| html | No | ||
| paper | No | Letter | |
| api_key | No | ||
| landscape | No |
Tool Definition Quality
B3.4/5.0
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Mentions respecting robots.txt and api_key creation behavior. No annotations provided, so description carries burden; could disclose more like idempotency or rate limits.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two paragraphs; first is concise, second repeats parameter info. Slightly verbose but not excessive.
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?
Covers main functionality, but lacks output format details (base64 string specifics), error handling, or size limits. Adequate for 5-param tool with no output schema.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, but description adds meaning: explains mutual exclusivity, lists paper sizes, landscape orientation, and api_key purpose. Compensates well for missing schema descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool renders a URL or HTML into a PDF and returns base64 data. It distinguishes the core function but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like screenshot or read_page.
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?
Provides guidance on mutual exclusivity of url/html and api_key handling, but lacks when-to-use vs. alternatives (e.g., when to use pdf instead of screenshot).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
read_pageAInspect
Load a web page in a real browser and return its main content as clean markdown, with the title, canonical url and basic metadata. Handles javascript-rendered pages. Respects robots.txt and refuses sites that block automation rather than trying to defeat them. Pass api_key if you already have a pagewatch key, otherwise a free trial key is created for you on the first call and returned in the response.
url: the page to read (http or https).
api_key: an existing pagewatch bearer token, optional.
wait_for_selector: css selector to wait for before reading, optional.
scroll: scroll the page to trigger lazy-loaded content, optional.
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | ||
| scroll | No | ||
| api_key | No | ||
| wait_for_selector | No |
Tool Definition Quality
A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Discloses handling of JS rendering, robots.txt compliance, and free trial key creation. No annotations provided, but description adds safety and behavioral context. Could mention rate limits or failure handling.
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?
Well-structured with main purpose first, then handling details, then parameter list. Slightly verbose but no wasted sentences.
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?
Covers input parameters and output format (markdown with metadata). No output schema, but description suffices. Missing error scenarios, but adequate for a read tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema coverage, description fully explains all four parameters: url, api_key, wait_for_selector, scroll. Adds meaning beyond schema types (e.g., wait_for_selector as CSS selector, scroll for lazy content).
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?
Clearly states it loads a web page and returns main content as clean markdown with metadata. Distinguishes from siblings like screenshot, pdf, balance.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides context: handles JavaScript-rendered pages, respects robots.txt, refuses blocked sites. Implicitly suggests use for dynamic content but lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
registerAInspect
Create a pagewatch api key for yourself. Free, no signup and no human form. Returns a bearer token that starts with a small free trial so your first read_page, screenshot or pdf works right away. When the trial runs out, hand the returned verification_uri_complete to your human, who confirms one email to unlock 200 more free credits (still free, nothing to pay). Reuse the token by passing it as api_key, or set it as Authorization: Bearer on this server. Nothing is ever charged: pagewatch has no payment processor connected.
label: a short name for this key, optional.
purpose: why you want web access, shown to your human on the activation page.
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| label | No | ||
| purpose | No |
Tool Definition Quality
A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, description fully discloses free nature, no signup, return of bearer token, and activation process. Lacks details on rate limits or multiple calls, but sufficient for registration tool.
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?
Description is somewhat lengthy but each sentence adds value. Front-loaded with main purpose. Could be slightly more concise, but efficient overall.
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 no output schema and simple parameters, description covers tool purpose, return value usage, and activation flow. Adequately complete for its complexity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, but description explains both optional parameters (label and purpose) with clear, meaningful context, compensating for schema gaps.
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 creates a pagewatch API key, explains the process, returns a bearer token, and distinguishes from sibling tools like read_page and screenshot.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides clear instructions on when to use the tool (first-time registration) and how to proceed after trial runs out. Does not explicitly mention when not to use or alternatives, but context suffices.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
screenshotAInspect
Take a screenshot of a web page rendered in a real browser and return it as base64 image data (png by default, jpeg optional), with the final url and pixel size. Consent overlays are hidden so the shot shows the page. Respects robots.txt. Pass api_key if you have a pagewatch key, otherwise a free trial key is created for you and returned.
url: the page to capture.
api_key: an existing pagewatch bearer token, optional.
full_page: capture the entire scrollable page, not just the viewport.
width, height: viewport size in pixels.
format: png or jpeg.
wait_for_selector: css selector to wait for before capturing, optional.
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | ||
| width | No | ||
| format | No | png | |
| height | No | ||
| api_key | No | ||
| full_page | No | ||
| wait_for_selector | No |
Tool Definition Quality
A3.9/5.0
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description covers key behaviors: uses a real browser, hides consent overlays, respects robots.txt, handles API keys. However, it lacks details on error handling, loading behavior, timeouts, and what happens for invalid URLs.
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 structured with a clear opening sentence and bullet-like parameter explanations. It is efficient but could be slightly more concise by avoiding repetition of 'base64 image data' in the first and subsequent sentences.
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 7 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description covers return format, consent handling, and API key behavior. Minor gaps include error handling and rate limits, but overall it is fairly complete for a screenshot tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Despite 0% schema coverage, the description explains each parameter (url, api_key, full_page, width, height, format, wait_for_selector) with meaningful context, such as api_key creating a free trial key. It adds value beyond the schema's type-only definitions.
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 it takes a screenshot of a web page and returns base64 image data, with specific details about format and output. It distinguishes from siblings like pdf (conversion) and read_page (text extraction) by being the only visual capture tool.
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?
The description implies usage for visual page capture but does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., read_page for text, pdf for PDFs). It mentions consent overlay hiding and robots.txt respect, but no clear guidance on exclusions or when not to use.
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!
Related MCP Servers
- AlicenseAqualityBmaintenanceEnables AI agents to read web pages reliably, returning clean markdown content, hyperlinks, and metadata without navigation or ad noise.314MIT
- AlicenseAqualityBmaintenanceEnables AI agents to read clean Markdown from any URL and assess source quality with AI-readability scores.6651MIT
- AlicenseAqualityDmaintenanceConverts URLs and raw HTML to clean Markdown, enabling AI assistants to read web pages for summarization, analysis, or ingestion.2171MIT
Try in Browser
Your Connectors
Sign in to create a connector for this server.