Skip to main content
Glama

Aspicio

by io.github.frontsail-ai

Render a PDF to an image

render_pdf
Read-only

Render a PDF drawing's vector content to a PNG you can look at. Images, shadings, and transparency are not drawn — they are reported by describe_pdf — so this shows line work and text, not a page facsimile. For a DXF use render_dxf; if you do not know the format, use render_doc. Renders the first page/sheet by default; pass space (a name from a describe reply's spaces) to render another one. Some chat UIs do not display the returned image to the user: for URL sources the result also includes a direct image link — show it (e.g. as a markdown image) when they need to see the render. When the user wants to see or explore the drawing themselves, prefer view_dxf (interactive viewer) — if your platform gates it behind user approval, offer it and ask rather than substituting a static render.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
spaceNoWhich space to work on: "Model" (a PDF's page 1, a DXF's model space) or a page/layout name as listed in a describe reply's "spaces". Describe omits it for the whole drawing; render defaults to the first space.
widthNoPNG width in pixels (default 1200)
sourceYesA publicly reachable http(s) URL, or inline DXF text. A PDF is binary, so it must be a URL — inline PDF bytes are refused. (This is a hosted server — local file paths are not available; use the npx @aspicio/mcp local server for files on disk.)

TDQS

A4.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnly, openWorld, non-destructive), the description reveals critical behavioral traits: it omits images/shadings/transparency, shows only line work and text, defaults to the first page, and for URL sources returns a direct image link for display when UIs don't show images. These are non-obvious and valuable details not encoded in the annotations.

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 dense but every sentence earns its place: the main purpose, rendering limitations, sibling alternatives, page selection, image display caveat, and interactive-viewer recommendation. It is front-loaded with the core function and structured logically from key behavior to edge cases, with no filler.

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?

Given the tool's complexity and the absence of an output schema, the description covers everything an agent needs: what is and isn't rendered, defaults, how to select other pages, how to handle URLs vs inline DXF, and how to deal with chat UI display limitations. It also names sibling tools and when to prefer them. No significant gaps remain.

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?

The schema already covers all three parameters at 100%, giving a solid baseline of 3. The description adds meaningful semantic context beyond the schema, particularly for `space` (a name from a describe reply's `spaces`) and the default first-page behavior. It also reinforces the source URL constraint for PDFs. This lifts the score to 4.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Render a PDF drawing's vector content to a PNG you can look at.' It explicitly distinguishes from siblings by pointing to render_dxf for DXF and render_doc for unknown formats, and mentions view_dxf as an interactive alternative. This makes the tool's unique role unmistakable.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Usage guidance is explicit and comprehensive: it states when to use this tool (for PDF vector line work/text rendering), clarifies what it does NOT render (images, shadings, transparency), and gives clear alternatives (render_dxf, render_doc, view_dxf). It also advises on showing the image link when chat UIs hide the output and prefers view_dxf for user exploration. This is thorough when/when-not guidance.

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

All Aspicio toolsInspect
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

A4.5/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: describe for structural facts, render for static images, view for interactive exploration, and format variants (doc/dxf/pdf) are explicitly disambiguated via format detection. The internal load_dxf_for_viewer is clearly marked as widget-only, so no real ambiguity exists.

Naming Consistency4/5

The naming follows a consistent verb_format pattern for describe_* and render_* tools, and view_dxf fits the verb_noun convention. Minor deviations include 'doc' as a generic format label, 'load_dxf_for_viewer' with a purpose suffix, and view_dxf also handling PDF despite the DXF-specific name.

Tool Count5/5

8 tools is well-scoped for a drawing inspection server: three describe variants, three render variants, one interactive viewer, and one internal loader. Each tool earns its place without redundancy or bloat.

Completeness5/5

The tool surface fully covers its read-only domain: structural description, visual rendering, and interactive exploration for both DXF and PDF formats. Missing operations like editing or conversion are outside the intended purpose, and the internal loading is appropriately handled by the viewer widget.

Resources