mdapi — HTML to Markdown for AI agents
Server Details
Web page or HTML to clean LLM-ready Markdown or JSON. x402 pay-per-call, $0.005, no API key.
- Status
- Healthy
- Last Tested
- Transport
- Streamable HTTP
- URL
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 3.7/5 across 3 of 3 tools scored.
Each tool has a distinct purpose: extract_page returns structured JSON metadata, html_to_markdown converts to Markdown, and service_info provides pricing details. No overlap exists.
Tool names follow a verb_noun pattern for the two primary tools (extract_page, html_to_markdown), but service_info deviates with a noun_info pattern. The mix is acceptable but not fully consistent.
With three tools, the set is appropriately scoped for a focused utility server. The inclusion of a separate service_info tool is sensible for payment transparency.
The server covers the core domain of HTML-to-Markdown conversion and structured extraction. The service_info tool handles operational needs. No obvious gaps for the stated purpose.
Available Tools
3 toolsextract_pageAInspect
Extract structured JSON from a web page (by URL) or raw HTML: title, byline, excerpt, siteName, publishedTime, language, plain text, links, images, and meta tags. Paid tool: $0.005 per call via x402 (USDC on Base).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | No | Public http(s) URL of the page to fetch and convert | |
| html | No | Raw HTML to convert instead of fetching a URL | |
| mode | No | article (default): main content only. full: whole page. |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description must cover behavioral traits. It mentions cost but lacks details on rate limits, error handling, or prerequisites like auth. Not sufficiently transparent.
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, each adding value: outputs and pricing. No wasted words, front-loaded with the core action.
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?
No output schema, but description lists expected output fields. Missing constraints (e.g., mutual exclusivity of url and html) and error behavior. Adequate but not 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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds no extra parameter context beyond listing output fields; it does not clarify or enhance parameter semantics.
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 extracts structured JSON from a web page or raw HTML, listing specific fields. It distinguishes it from siblings like html_to_markdown and service_info.
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 cost info but no explicit guidance on when to use vs alternatives. Usage is implied but not clearly differentiated from sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
html_to_markdownAInspect
Convert a web page (by URL) or raw HTML into clean, LLM-ready Markdown. Readability article extraction; nav/scripts/footers stripped; tables preserved. Set render=true to execute the page in a real headless browser first — required for JS-rendered SPAs (React/Next/Vue) that return empty HTML to a plain fetch. Paid tool: $0.005 per call via x402 (USDC on Base).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | No | Public http(s) URL of the page to fetch and convert | |
| html | No | Raw HTML to convert instead of fetching a URL | |
| mode | No | article (default): main content only via Readability. full: whole page. | |
| render | No | true: execute the page in a headless browser before converting (JS-rendered SPAs) |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description transparently discloses key behaviors: readability extraction (stripping nav/scripts/footers), table preservation, JS rendering via headless browser, and pricing. It does not mention rate limits, error handling, or auth, but covers core behavioral traits.
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 concise (two sentences), well-structured, and front-loaded with the main purpose. Every sentence adds value without repetition or fluff.
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 annotations and no output schema, the description covers essential behavioral and usage context for a tool with 4 parameters. It lacks details on parameter mutual exclusivity, error handling, and limits, but is largely sufficient.
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 100%, so parameters are already documented. The description adds context about render=true for SPAs and mode defaults, but this is mostly redundant. Pricing info is extra but not parameter-specific.
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 action (convert), inputs (URL or raw HTML), output (clean Markdown), and key features (Readability extraction, table preservation). It distinguishes itself effectively from siblings by specifying its conversion focus.
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 clear guidance on when to use render=true for JS-rendered SPAs and mentions pricing. However, it lacks explicit comparison to sibling tools like extract_page and does not specify when to use url vs html.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
service_infoAInspect
Free. Service, pricing, and payment details for the mdapi tools on this server.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses that the tool is free and informational. With no annotations, this provides moderate transparency. It does not address side effects, authentication, or rate limits, which are less critical for a read-only info tool.
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 a single concise sentence (12 words) that front-loads the key trait 'Free'. Every word adds value with no 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?
Given 0 parameters and no output schema, the description sufficiently covers the tool's purpose. It could mention the output format or response behavior, but for a simple info tool it is near 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?
No parameters exist in the input schema, so the description correctly avoids parameter details. The baseline score for 0 parameters is 4.
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 provides service, pricing, and payment details for mdapi tools. It's specific about what information is available, though it could be more precise about the format or scope.
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings (extract_page, html_to_markdown). The use case is implicitly for getting tool info, but explicit recommendations are absent.
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!