Skip to main content
Glama

api2pdf

by io.usefulapi

HTML to PDF (Chrome)

api2pdf_html_to_pdf
Destructive

Render an HTML string to a PDF using the headless-Chrome engine. Returns a { FileUrl } link (valid ~24h) by default. Great for invoices, reports, and letters produced as HTML. BILLED per document. Api2Pdf API: POST /chrome/pdf/html.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
htmlYesThe HTML source to render into a PDF.
inlineNoIf true (Api2Pdf default), the generated file is served inline; if false, as an attachment.
optionsNoEngine-specific render options (page size, margins, orientation, headers/footers, etc.). Passed through verbatim to Api2Pdf.
storageNoCustom storage target, used when useCustomStorage is true.
fileNameNoA name for the generated file, e.g. 'invoice.pdf'.
output_binaryNoIf true, return the raw file bytes as base64 instead of a FileUrl. Default false (recommended for agents — returns a short-lived link).
extraHTTPHeadersNoExtra HTTP headers Api2Pdf forwards when it fetches a source URL (e.g. auth for a protected page/file).
useCustomStorageNoIf true, Api2Pdf uploads the result to your own storage (see `storage`) instead of hosting it.

Schema Changelog

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

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations only provide destructiveHint, so the description adds valuable behavioral context: the returned FileUrl is valid only ~24h, and the operation is BILLED per document. This alerts agents to cost and link-expiry implications beyond what annotations or schema express.

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?

Five short sentences, each contributing distinct information: input type, output format and validity, use cases, billing, and API endpoint. The description is front-loaded with the core behavior and contains no filler.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a moderately complex 8-parameter tool with no output schema, the description communicates the key return artifact (FileUrl), its lifetime, billing, and rendering engine. Since all parameters are fully described in the schema, the missing pieces are mainly explicit sibling routing guidance, which would push it to complete.

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 all 8 parameters already documented, including nested objects and output_binary behavior. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning, but it does not need to since the schema fully carries that 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?

States a specific action ('Render an HTML string to a PDF') and explicitly identifies the engine ('headless-Chrome'), making the tool's operation and scope clear. The API endpoint 'POST /chrome/pdf/html' further pins down the exact functionality and helps distinguish it from URL-based or wkhtml-based siblings.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

Gives clear intended use cases ('invoices, reports, and letters produced as HTML') and specifies that the input is an HTML string. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions (e.g., 'if you have a URL, use api2pdf_url_to_pdf'), but the input and engine information gives an agent enough context to select it.

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

All api2pdf 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

A4.3/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Each tool targets a distinct operation: conversions, PDF manipulations, file deletion, and account/service info are clearly separated. Even the three HTML-to-PDF tools are distinguished by source type or rendering engine.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tools follow a consistent api2pdf_ prefix with snake_case verb-based names such as add_password, merge_pdfs, and url_to_pdf. The pattern is predictable and makes it easy to infer what each tool does.

Tool Count4/5

Sixteen tools is slightly above the typical 3-15 range, but the count is justified by the breadth of Api2Pdf's functionality spanning creation, manipulation, conversion, deletion, and account management.

Completeness5/5

The surface covers the full PDF lifecycle: generate from multiple sources, manipulate via merge/extract/compress/password, convert to markdown, delete files, plus billing and status checks. No obvious missing operations for the documented purpose.

Resources