toolforte

Web page to PDF

url_to_pdf

Render a public web page to PDF with headless Chrome. Returns a hosted download URL valid for 24 hours. Free demo: 3 renders/day. With a free ToolForte API key (Authorization: Bearer tf_..., get one at https://toolforte.com/developers), which spends your monthly unit balance: 25 units per render.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`url`	Yes	Public http(s) URL to render
`format`	No	Paper size: A4 or Letter (default A4)	A4
`landscape`	No	Landscape orientation instead of portrait (default false)

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`url`	No	Hosted download URL of the produced file
`bytes`	No	Size in bytes
`result`	No	The result, when it is not an object
`metering`	No	What this call cost and what allowance remains
`expiresAt`	No	When the download URL stops working (ISO 8601)
`contentType`	No	MIME type of the produced file

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

Changed3 schema fields changedSep 5, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / format / description

Added value: +"Paper size: A4 or Letter (default A4)"

addedInput schema / properties / landscape / description

Added value: +"Landscape orientation instead of portrait (default false)"

changedOutput schema / (root)

Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "$schema": "https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema",
+  "additionalProperties": {},
+  "properties": {
+    "bytes": {
+      "description": "Size in bytes",
+      "type": "number"
+    },
+    "contentType": {
+      "description": "MIME type of the produced file",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "expiresAt": {
+      "description": "When the download URL stops working (ISO 8601)",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "metering": {
+      "additionalProperties": {},
+      "description": "What this call cost and what allowance remains",
+      "properties": {
+        "remaining": {
+          "type": "number"
+        },
+        "source": {
+          "type": "string"
+        }
+      },
+      "type": "object"
+    },
+    "result": {
+      "description": "The result, when it is not an object"
+    },
+    "url": {
+      "description": "Hosted download URL of the produced file",
+      "type": "string"
+    }
+  },
+  "type": "object"
+}

First observedSep 1, 2026

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

The description goes well beyond the generic annotations (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false) by disclosing concrete behavior: the hosted download URL expires in 24 hours, free demo limits to 3 renders/day, and paid renders cost 25 units each. It also specifies authentication with a Bearer tf_ API key. These are exactly the operational details an agent needs.

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?

The description is three tightly packed sentences with no redundancy. It front-loads the primary action, then adds output lifetime, then authentication and cost details. Every sentence provides distinct, necessary information without repeating schema definitions.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple 3-parameter tool with full schema coverage and an output schema, the description covers the essential operational context: output URL expiry, free-tier limits, authentication format, and per-render cost. It does not need to explain return values because the output schema handles that. The 'public web page' wording also correctly scopes the accepted input.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with each parameter already well-documented including defaults and enums. The tool description adds no new parameter-level meaning beyond restating that the URL is 'public,' which the schema also says. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema carries the parameter documentation burden.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Render a public web page to PDF with headless Chrome.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like html_to_pdf (raw HTML input) and url_screenshot (image output). The title 'Web page to PDF' reinforces the purpose without ambiguity.

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 public URLs and notes the API key/demo constraints, but it does not explicitly say when to use this tool over alternatives such as html_to_pdf or read_page. There are no when-to-use or when-not-to-use statements, so the selection guidance remains implicit rather than explicit.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All toolforte tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Disambiguation5/5

Every tool targets a distinct resource or action, and the detailed descriptions clearly separate near neighbors like generate_test_bsn versus generate_brp_test_data, read_page versus url_screenshot versus url_to_pdf, and image_compress/convert/resize. Even with 40 tools, there is no real boundary-blurring overlap.

Naming Consistency3/5

All names are snake_case and readable, but the set mixes conventions: verb_noun (generate_*, validate_*), noun_verb (pdf_merge, image_resize), conversion-style names (csv_to_json, html_to_pdf), and bare nouns (base64, qr_code_png). The groups are recognizable, but there is no single predictable pattern.

Tool Count2/5

Forty tools is an oversized surface for an agent to consider on every call, well above the point where tool selection cost starts to hurt. The broad purpose explains the count, but many one-off utilities could be grouped or exposed selectively.

Completeness3/5

The server covers many domains—encoding, Dutch test data, image/PDF handling, memory, and workflows—but several categories are partial: there are no reverse conversions like json_to_csv or html_to_markdown, no PDF text extraction, and no workflow create/update/delete tools. Agents can work around some gaps, but notable operations are missing.

Resources

Need Help?