api_pdfRender any page to PDF (A4, print background) via headless Chrome. ?url= [HTTP x402 price: $0.02]
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| params | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / params / additionalPropertiesRemoved value: -trueInput schema / properties / params / propertiesAdded value: +{
+ "url": {
+ "anyOf": [
+ {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ {
+ "type": "null"
+ }
+ ],
+ "default": null
+ }
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
There are no annotations, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does add useful behavioral details: A4 output, print background, headless Chrome, and price/cost information. However, it does not disclose limitations, auth requirements, or side effects, though the operation is largely self-contained.
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 core description is one tight, front-loaded sentence: 'Render any page to PDF (A4, print background) via headless Chrome.' The trailing '?url= [HTTP x402 price: $0.02]' is concise but cryptic, mixing query syntax and billing in an awkward way.
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?
This is a low-complexity tool with one parameter and an existing output schema, so the description does not need to explain return values. It covers the main purpose, rendering options, engine, and cost. It lacks explicit alternative guidance and URL format details, but those are partially captured by other dimensions.
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 the description must compensate. The '?url=' fragment signals that the url parameter is the target page to render, and 'any page' gives some meaning. Yet it does not clarify URL encoding, protocol requirements, or whether the parameter is optional, leaving important semantic gaps.
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 renders any page to PDF using headless Chrome, which is a specific action on a specific resource. It distinguishes this from sibling tools like api_screenshot by naming the output format (PDF) and rendering approach.
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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as api_screenshot or api_render_text. It implies usage for PDF output, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.