Handiworks
Server Details
MCP tools for AI agents: render URLs to image/PDF, check link health, convert HTML/CSV/JSON.
- 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 3.8/5 across 3 of 3 tools scored.
The 'convert' and 'render' tools both offer html-to-png and html-to-pdf functionality using real browsers, making them nearly indistinguishable for those tasks. 'check_link' is distinct, but the overlap between the other two creates confusion.
Tool names follow no consistent pattern: 'check_link' uses verb_noun with underscore, while 'convert' and 'render' are single verbs without underscores. Mixing conventions reduces predictability.
With only 3 tools, the server feels minimal. The overlap between 'convert' and 'render' suggests the count could be reduced by merging, while other utilities are absent. Not extreme, but borderline for a general-purpose server.
The tool surface is sparse and has notable gaps: no URL validation, no text extraction from pages, no batch or advanced conversion options. The overlap between tools further indicates an incomplete design.
Available Tools
3 toolscheck_linkCheck link healthAInspect
Check a URL's health: follows the redirect chain, reports the final status and URL, extracts the page , and flags likely paywalls. Cached for 6h.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | The absolute URL to check. | |
| fresh | No | Bypass the 6h cache and re-check now. | |
| maxRedirects | No | Maximum redirect hops to follow. | |
| followRedirects | No | Follow 3xx redirects to the final destination. |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Discloses key behaviors: follows redirects, reports final status/URL, extracts title, flags paywalls, and caching with 6h expiry. Lacks details on paywall flagging criteria and return format.
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 succinct sentences with no fluff. Front-loaded with purpose, then specifics. Highly efficient.
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?
Covers main functionality but does not fully explain response structure (e.g., format of status, title, paywall flag). Without output schema, more detail would improve completeness.
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?
Description adds context beyond schema (e.g., cache bypass for 'fresh' parameter, redirect chain for 'maxRedirects'/'followRedirects'), but schema already provides clear parameter descriptions. Marginal added value.
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 'Check a URL's health' with specific actions: follows redirects, reports status/URL, extracts title, flags paywalls, and caching. Distinct from siblings convert and render.
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?
Clearly defines the tool's purpose for URL health checking, implying its use case. However, no explicit guidance on when not to use it or alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
convertConvert content between formatsAInspect
Convert content between formats. Modes: html-to-pdf, html-to-png (real browser), csv-to-json, json-to-csv. PDF/PNG return as attachment/image; data modes return text.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| mode | Yes | Conversion to perform. | |
| content | Yes | The input content: HTML, CSV, or JSON depending on mode. | |
| headers | No | For csv-to-json: treat the first row as column headers. | |
| delimiter | No | Field delimiter for CSV modes. | , |
| pdfFormat | No | Paper size for html-to-pdf. | A4 |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that html-to-png uses a real browser, which is a key behavioral detail. However, it does not discuss error handling, size limits, or idempotency, leaving some gaps.
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 two sentences, front-loaded with purpose and modes, and includes key return type distinctions. Every word is necessary and efficient.
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 covers return types for each mode category. It specifies all 4 modes and return formats. For a tool with 5 parameters, this is fairly complete, though it could mention that content must match the selected mode.
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 all 5 parameters are described in the schema. The description does not add new information about individual parameters but provides context about return types per mode, which is not in the schema. This is adequate but not exceptional.
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 content between formats and lists all four specific modes (html-to-pdf, html-to-png, csv-to-json, json-to-csv), using a specific verb and resource. It implicitly distinguishes from sibling tools like 'render' which likely handles rendering rather than conversion.
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 mentions return types (attachment/image vs text) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over siblings like 'check_link' or 'render'. The usage context is implied by the mode list but lacks when-not or alternative guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
renderRender URL to screenshot or PDFAInspect
Render a web page to a PNG/JPEG screenshot or a PDF using a real headless browser. Returns the image inline (base64) or the PDF as an embedded resource. Results are cached for 24h.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | The absolute URL to render (must include https:// or http://). | |
| fresh | No | Bypass the 24h cache and force a fresh render. | |
| width | No | Viewport width in pixels. | |
| format | No | Output format. png/jpeg return an image; pdf returns a PDF document. | png |
| height | No | Viewport height in pixels. | |
| fullPage | No | For screenshots: capture the entire scrollable page instead of just the viewport. | |
| pdfFormat | No | Paper size, used only when format is pdf. | A4 |
| waitUntil | No | Navigation completion signal before capturing. | networkidle2 |
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 reveals output formats (base64 image, embedded PDF), caching (24h), and use of a headless browser. However, it does not mention error handling, rate limits, or what happens on invalid URLs, which would improve transparency.
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 two sentences (38 words), efficiently front-loading the core purpose and output. Every sentence adds value with no redundant information.
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?
With 8 parameters and no output schema, the description is somewhat incomplete. It covers key aspects (purpose, formats, caching) but lacks details on error behavior, response structure, or when to use specific parameters (e.g., pdfFormat vs format).
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 100%, so parameters are well-documented in the schema. The description adds only general context (output formats, caching) but does not elaborate on parameter usage beyond what the schema provides, meriting a baseline score of 3.
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: 'Render a web page to a PNG/JPEG screenshot or a PDF using a real headless browser.' It specifies the resource (web page) and verb (render), and distinguishes from siblings like check_link and convert by focusing on rendering via a browser.
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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings or alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, limitations, or when not to use it, leaving the agent to infer usage.
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!