ShotAPI MCP Server
Server Details
Screenshot and HTML render MCP server for AI agents
- 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 4.3/5 across 3 of 3 tools scored.
The screenshot and screenshot_one_liner tools have significant overlap; screenshot_one_liner is just a simplified version of screenshot with fixed defaults. An agent could easily misselect between them, especially if the simpler name seems more appropriate but lacks needed options.
render and screenshot follow a simple verb pattern, but screenshot_one_liner breaks this by adding a compound name with underscores. The inconsistency is minor but noticeable.
Three tools is a reasonable count for a focused screenshot/rendering service. It's not overly sparse, but the overlap between two screenshot tools suggests that two could be merged, making the count slightly padded.
The tool set covers basic rendering and screenshot needs, but there are gaps: no support for other output formats (e.g., PDF), no mobile viewport emulation, and the duplication of screenshot tools creates an unclear workflow. The domain is narrow, so completeness is adequate but not excellent.
Available Tools
3 toolsrenderAInspect
Render HTML/CSS code as an image. Turn any markup into a visual preview.
Useful for: previewing UI code, checking CSS layouts, turning design mockups into shareable images.
Supports <style> tags, inline CSS, and common HTML features.
Output is auto-cropped to content — no wasted blank space below.
Args:
html: The HTML/CSS code to render
width: Viewport width in pixels (default: 1280)
height: Viewport height in pixels — output auto-cropped to content (default: 720)
format: Image format — "jpeg" saves tokens, "png" for crisp text, "webp" smallest (default: "jpeg")
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| html | Yes | ||
| width | No | ||
| format | No | jpeg | |
| height | No |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Despite no annotations, the description discloses important behaviors: auto-cropping to content, support for HTML features, and format-specific trade-offs (jpeg saves tokens, png crisp, webp smallest).
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?
Well-structured: one-line purpose, bullet-like list of uses, then parameter explanations. Front-loaded and every sentence adds value.
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 all parameters, provides behavioral details, and includes output schema existence. No apparent gaps given the tool's complexity.
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?
The description adds significant meaning to all 4 parameters: html, width, height (with auto-crop note), and format (with recommendations). Schema coverage is 0%, so description fully compensates.
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 HTML/CSS code as an image, and explicitly mentions use cases like previewing UI code and design mockups, which differentiate it from screenshot tools.
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?
Provides clear use cases (previewing, checking layouts, turning designs into images) and lists supported features, but does not explicitly state when not to use or compare to sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
screenshotAInspect
Capture a webpage screenshot with full control over viewport, format, and element selection.
Args:
url: The URL to screenshot
width: Viewport width in pixels (default: 1280)
height: Viewport height in pixels (default: 720)
fullpage: Capture the entire scrollable page instead of just the viewport (default: false)
format: Image format — "jpeg" saves tokens (~50KB), "png" for quality, "webp" smallest (default: "jpeg")
block_ads: Remove ads and cookie banners (default: true)
wait_for: CSS selector to wait for before capturing, e.g. ".main-content" to ensure content loaded
selector: CSS selector to capture only a specific element, e.g. ".hero" or "#pricing-table"
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | ||
| width | No | ||
| format | No | jpeg | |
| height | No | ||
| fullpage | No | ||
| selector | No | ||
| wait_for | No | ||
| block_ads | No |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description provides useful behavioral context: format size implications (JPEG ~50KB), ad blocking, waiting for selectors, and element selection. It does not mention auth, rate limits, or error handling, but the key behaviors are 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?
The description is concise: one introductory sentence followed by a bullet list of parameters. Each line is informative and no extraneous text. Front-loaded with the main purpose.
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 8 parameters, no annotations, and existing output schema, the description covers all parameter behaviors. It lacks mention of error handling or return format, but the output schema likely provides that. Minor gap.
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 carries full burden. It explains all 8 parameters with examples and context (e.g., 'JPEG saves tokens (~50KB)', 'wait_for: .main-content'). This adds substantial meaning beyond the bare schema.
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 'Capture a webpage screenshot with full control over viewport, format, and element selection.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'screenshot_one_liner' (which is likely simpler) and 'render' (possibly different rendering).
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 implies usage for full control but does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives like 'render' or 'screenshot_one_liner'. No when-not-to-use guidance or mention of prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
screenshot_one_linerAInspect
Capture a webpage as a JPEG screenshot. The simplest way to see what a webpage looks like.
Use this when you need to quickly check a webpage's appearance, verify a design, or see content that requires rendering.
Returns a 1280x720 JPEG image (~50KB) with ads blocked.
Args:
url: The URL to screenshot (e.g. "https://example.com")
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the output is a 1280x720 JPEG image (~50KB) and that ads are blocked. However, it does not mention potential limitations such as page load timeouts, JavaScript execution, or error handling for inaccessible URLs.
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 with two short paragraphs and an Args section. Every sentence adds value: purpose, when to use, output details, and parameter format. There is no redundant or waste language.
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?
For a simple tool with one parameter and no annotations, the description covers purpose, usage context, output format, and ad blocking. It lacks details on error behavior and limitations, but given the tool's simplicity, it is largely 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?
The schema has 0% description coverage for the single parameter 'url'. The description adds an example format ('e.g. https://example.com') and clarifies it is a URL, which is basic but helpful. For a single required parameter, this is adequate but minimal.
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 ('Capture a webpage as a JPEG screenshot'), the resource ('webpage'), and provides specific details about the output (1280x720, ~50KB, ads blocked), distinguishing it from sibling tools by emphasizing simplicity.
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 explicitly states when to use this tool ('quickly check a webpage's appearance, verify a design, or see content that requires rendering'), providing clear usage context. However, it does not offer explicit when-not-to-use scenarios or direct comparisons with sibling tools.
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!