Skip to main content
Glama

api2pdf

by io.usefulapi

URL to PDF (Chrome)

api2pdf_url_to_pdf
Destructive

Fetch a web page by URL and render it to a PDF using headless Chrome. Returns a { FileUrl } (valid ~24h). Use extraHTTPHeaders to pass auth for a protected page. BILLED. Api2Pdf API: POST /chrome/pdf/url.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
urlYesThe URL of the web page Api2Pdf will fetch and render to 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

A4.4/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the destructiveHint annotation, the description discloses the return shape '{ FileUrl }', its ~24h validity, the billing side effect, and the exact API endpoint. This is meaningful operational transparency and does not contradict 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?

Three short sentences convey behavior, output, auth, billing, and endpoint with no filler. The most decision-relevant information is front-loaded before the billing and API details.

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?

With no output schema, the description appropriately explains the return value and expiry. It also covers auth and billing, while the detailed input schema handles the remaining parameters. It omits the output_binary alternative, but the schema already documents that clearly.

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%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description adds only light reinforcement for extraHTTPHeaders and the FileUrl return; it does not need to compensate because the schema is rich.

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-resource pair: 'Fetch a web page by URL and render it to a PDF using headless Chrome.' It also names the engine (Chrome) and API endpoint, which differentiates it from sibling tools like api2pdf_wkhtml_to_pdf and api2pdf_url_to_image.

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?

The description gives explicit conditional guidance: 'Use extraHTTPHeaders to pass auth for a protected page,' and flags that the operation is BILLED. It does not explicitly compare against sibling PDF tools, but the Chrome engine and endpoint make the intended use case clear.

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