Pagewatch
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.
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.
Tool Definition Quality
Average 4.3/5 across 5 of 5 tools scored.
Each tool addresses a distinct function: balance checks credits, pdf converts to PDF, read_page extracts markdown, register creates an API key, and screenshot captures images. No overlap or ambiguity.
Tool names use mixed conventions: single-word verbs (balance, register, screenshot), an abbreviation (pngToPdf), and a snake_case noun phrase (read_page). No consistent pattern like verb_noun.
Five tools cover the core functionality of web page capture, conversion, reading, and account management. The count is well-scoped for the server's purpose.
The tool set covers the main use cases: converting pages to PDF/screenshots, extracting text, and handling account credits. Minor gaps like updating or deleting API keys are absent but not critical.
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.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| api_key | No |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It indicates a read-only check (credits, prices, link) but does not mention rate limits, auth requirements beyond optional api_key, or whether it modifies state. Adequate but not detailed.
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?
Two sentences plus one line for parameter explanation. Every part is essential, no fluff. Information is front-loaded.
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?
Given no output schema, the description adequately hints at return values (credits, prices, activation link) and covers authentication. For a simple tool with one optional parameter, this is complete.
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 coverage is 0% (only type/null/default), but the description adds meaning: 'an existing pagewatch bearer token, optional.' This clarifies usage beyond schema, compensating for lack of schema description.
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 clearly specifies the verb 'Check' and the resource (remaining free credits, per-call prices, activation link) on a pagewatch key. It distinguishes from siblings like pdf or screenshot which are unrelated.
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?
Provides explicit guidance on when to pass api_key (if no Authorization header) and mentions that it returns activation link if key not switched on. However, it does not explicitly exclude use cases or name alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
pdfAInspect
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.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | No | ||
| html | No | ||
| paper | No | Letter | |
| api_key | No | ||
| landscape | No |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses output format (base64 PDF), robots.txt compliance, and that a free trial key is created if missing. This is informative but could mention potential errors or limits.
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?
The description is well-structured, starting with the main action, then listing parameters. It's mostly concise, though could be slightly shorter.
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 tool with no output schema, the description mentions return format (base64 PDF) and covers all inputs. Lacks detail on potential errors or response size limits, but sufficiently complete.
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 coverage is 0%, so description compensates fully. It explains each parameter: url/html exclusivity, api_key purpose, paper sizes (A4, Letter, Legal, A3), and landscape boolean.
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 clearly states the tool converts a URL or raw HTML to a PDF and returns it as base64. This distinguishes it 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.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
It provides clear usage constraints: provide exactly one of url or html, mentions respect for robots.txt, and explains api_key. However, it doesn't explicitly compare with alternatives or state 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.
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.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | ||
| scroll | No | ||
| api_key | No | ||
| wait_for_selector | No |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description discloses handling of JavaScript, robots.txt compliance, and automatic free trial key creation, but does not mention rate limits or additional authentication details.
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?
The description is well-structured with a clear lead sentence followed by parameter bullets; every sentence adds value without 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 4-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers core behavior, all parameters, and response content, though omitting return type details.
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 0%, but the description explains each parameter's purpose beyond the schema, including optional wait_for_selector and scroll for lazy-loaded content.
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 clearly states the tool loads a web page in a real browser and returns the main content as clean markdown with title and metadata, distinguishing it from siblings like screenshot or pdf.
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?
The description explains when to use (e.g., for JS-rendered pages) and mentions respecting robots.txt, but does not explicitly say when not to use or compare with 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.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| label | No | ||
| purpose | No |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses key behaviors: free, no signup, returns bearer token with trial, and explicitly states 'Nothing is ever charged' and 'no payment processor connected.' It does not mention idempotency or error handling, but overall transparency is high.
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?
The description is relatively long but every sentence adds value. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and then provides necessary details. Could benefit from slightly more structured formatting, but it is not overly verbose.
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?
Given only 2 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the tool's purpose, its free nature, the activation flow, and parameter semantics. It lacks mention of return format or potential errors, but overall is quite complete for a simple registration tool.
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 coverage is 0%, but the description adds meaning for both parameters: 'label' is described as a short optional name, and 'purpose' as the reason for web access shown to the human on activation page. This adds significant value beyond the schema's type-only definition.
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 explicitly states 'Create a pagewatch api key for yourself,' using a specific verb and resource. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools (balance, pdf, read_page, screenshot) which are for using the key, not creating it.
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?
The description explains when to use the tool (to obtain an API key) and details the post-creation flow (trial, verification, credits). It does not explicitly state when not to use it or provide alternatives, but the context makes it clear this is a one-time setup tool.
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.
| 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
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses that it uses a real browser, hides consent overlays, respects robots.txt, and creates a free trial key if no api_key is provided. It does not detail return format beyond base64, but covers key behaviors.
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?
Description is front-loaded with main purpose and includes a clear list of parameters. It is slightly verbose but contains no fluff; every sentence adds value.
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?
Given 7 parameters, 1 required, no output schema, the description explains the tool's behavior and all parameters adequately. It does not specify return format details but covers essential information.
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 coverage is 0% (no descriptions in schema properties), but the description lists all 7 parameters with their meanings (url, api_key, full_page, width, height, format, wait_for_selector), adding substantial value beyond the schema structure.
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?
Description clearly states it takes a screenshot of a web page and returns base64 image data, final URL, and pixel size. It also distinguishes from sibling tools (balance, pdf, read_page, register) by its specific screenshot functionality.
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?
The description provides context about consent overlays being hidden and respecting robots.txt, and explains the api_key usage. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives or when not to use it.
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!
Your Connectors
Sign in to create a connector for this server.