markdown_to_html
Convert Markdown into a styled, standalone HTML document. Returns a downloadable URL.
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| title | No | Document title. | |
| markdown | Yes | Markdown source. |
TDQS
A3.6/5.0
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It honestly reports that the output is a downloadable URL, which is a key behavioral detail. However, it doesn't mention potential side effects, storage/retention behavior, or limitations, which could be relevant. No contradiction with annotations exists (none provided).
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?
A single, front-loaded sentence that efficiently states the purpose and return value with zero superfluous content. Every word contributes meaning.
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?
The tool has low complexity (2 parameters, no output schema) and the description covers the essential output ('downloadable URL') and format ('standalone HTML'). It doesn't explain potential limitations or styling details, but for a straightforward converter, this is sufficiently 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 coverage is 100% with both parameters ('title' and 'markdown') having descriptions. The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, such as detailing how the title is used in the generated HTML, so it remains at the baseline of 3.
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 clearly states the verb 'Convert' and the resource 'Markdown', with the output specified as 'a styled, standalone HTML document'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like markdown_to_docx by explicitly naming HTML as the target format.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as generate_pdf or markdown_to_docx. The description implies a use case for standalone HTML, but does not explicitly state selection criteria or when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Try in Browser
Glama MCP Gateway
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
TDQS
A3.8/5.0
Disambiguation5/5
All six tools have clearly distinct purposes: converting markdown to different formats, merging/stamping PDFs, and checking recalls. No two tools are easily confused.
Naming Consistency4/5
Most tools use a verb_noun pattern (generate_pdf, merge_pdfs, watermark_pdf, check_recalls), but markdown_to_docx and markdown_to_html use a different pattern (source_to_target). The inconsistency is minor and still readable.
Tool Count4/5
With 6 tools, the count is reasonable for a document conversion utility. However, the inclusion of check_recalls feels out of place for a server named 'pdf', slightly diluting focus.
Completeness3/5
The tool set covers markdown-to-PDF and PDF merging/watermarking, but lacks PDF-to-other-format conversion, splitting, or editing. The recall checker is an unrelated gap filler. Core PDF workflows are partially covered.