Screenshot & HTML-to-PDF rendering API for AI agents — capture any URL or raw HTML as PNG/JPEG/PDF via a managed Chromium fleet. Free tier.
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.
Average 4.4/5 across 4 of 4 tools scored.
Each rendering tool targets a distinct output format (Markdown, PDF, screenshot), and the signup tool serves a separate purpose. No overlap or ambiguity.
All tool names follow a consistent 'snapforge_<format>' pattern, with the signup tool fitting the same convention. No mixing of styles.
With 4 tools covering rendering to three common formats plus account creation, the count is well-scoped for the server's purpose.
The set covers the main rendering outputs users need. A minor gap is the lack of a tool to manage API keys or view usage, but the core workflow is complete.
snapforge_markdownSnapForge URL to MarkdownAExtract a clean Markdown version of a public URL or raw HTML (article extraction + HTML→Markdown). Great for feeding live web content to an LLM. Requires a SnapForge API key (no key? call snapforge_signup first).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | No | Public http/https URL to render. Provide either url or html. | |
| html | No | Raw HTML to render instead of a URL (max 2MB). Provide either url or html. | |
| delay | No | Extra wait in milliseconds before capture (0–10000) | |
| waitUntil | No | When to consider the page ready: "load" (default) or "networkidle" |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| markdown | Yes | The extracted Markdown content |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and destructiveHint; the description adds context about article extraction and HTML-to-Markdown conversion, which clarifies the tool's internal processing beyond the annotations. No contradictions with annotations.
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 two sentences long, each serving a distinct purpose: stating the tool's function and providing usage context. No redundant information, and the key points are front-loaded.
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?
The description covers core functionality, prerequisites, and usage scenario. With full schema coverage and an output schema, it is reasonably complete. Lacks mention of error conditions or rate limits, but these are often handled by the output schema.
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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description aligns with schema parameters (url, html) but does not add new semantic details beyond what the schema provides.
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 uses a specific verb 'Extract' and resource 'clean Markdown version', which clearly states the tool's function. It distinguishes from sibling tools (snapforge_pdf, snapforge_screenshot, snapforge_signup) by focusing on Markdown output and mentioning the API key requirement.
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 includes a clear usage scenario ('Great for feeding live web content to an LLM') and prerequisite handling ('no key? call snapforge_signup first'). It lacks explicit 'when not to use' guidance, but the context of sibling tools provides implicit differentiation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
snapforge_pdfSnapForge PDFARender a public URL or raw HTML to a PDF (returned as an embedded resource). Requires a SnapForge API key (no key? call snapforge_signup first).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | No | Public http/https URL to render. Provide either url or html. | |
| html | No | Raw HTML to render instead of a URL (max 2MB). Provide either url or html. | |
| delay | No | Extra wait in milliseconds before capture (0–10000) | |
| margin | No | CSS size applied to all margins, e.g. "1cm" | |
| landscape | No | Landscape orientation (default false) | |
| waitUntil | No | When to consider the page ready: "load" (default) or "networkidle" | |
| pageFormat | No | Paper size when paginating (default A4) | |
| singlePage | No | Output one continuous page sized to the content height (no A4 pagination) | |
| printBackground | No | Include CSS background colors and images (default true) |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| bytes | Yes | Size of the generated PDF in bytes |
| mimeType | Yes | Always application/pdf |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description is consistent with annotations (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint) and adds the key requirement. No contradiction; the behavior as a read-only render operation is clear. Additional context like rate limits or error handling is not provided but annotations already cover safety.
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 extremely concise with two sentences: the first stating purpose and output, the second noting the key requirement. No redundant information.
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 the tool has 9 parameters with full schema documentation and an output schema (implied), the description covers the essential purpose and prerequisite. It could add guidance on parameter selection but overall it is adequate for a well-annotated tool.
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 100%, so the description does not need to elaborate on parameters. It adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, such as constraints or inter-parameter dependencies. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 a public URL or raw HTML to a PDF, using specific verbs and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like snapforge_screenshot and snapforge_markdown by specifying PDF output.
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 mentions the prerequisite of a SnapForge API key and directs to snapforge_signup as an alternative if no key. However, it does not compare directly with sibling tools for when to choose PDF over other formats.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
snapforge_screenshotSnapForge screenshotACapture a screenshot of a public URL or raw HTML as a PNG/JPEG image. Full-page by default. Requires a SnapForge API key (no key? call snapforge_signup first).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | No | Public http/https URL to render. Provide either url or html. | |
| html | No | Raw HTML to render instead of a URL (max 2MB). Provide either url or html. | |
| delay | No | Extra wait in milliseconds before capture (0–10000) | |
| scale | No | Device pixel ratio for high-DPI/retina output (1–3) | |
| width | No | Viewport width in pixels (100–3840) | |
| format | No | Image format: "png" (default) or "jpeg" | |
| height | No | Viewport height in pixels (100–2160) | |
| quality | No | JPEG quality 1–100 (ignored for PNG) | |
| fullPage | No | Capture the full scrollable page (default true) | |
| waitUntil | No | When to consider the page ready: "load" (default) or "networkidle" |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| bytes | Yes | Size of the returned image in bytes |
| mimeType | Yes | Image MIME type, e.g. image/png |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds that full-page is default and that an API key is required, which are useful behavioral details. It does not disclose error modes or rate limits, but given annotation coverage, the description adds reasonable value.
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?
Two sentences, no fluff, directly conveying the core purpose, default behavior, and a key prerequisite. Every sentence earns its place.
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 the tool's complexity (10 parameters) and the existence of an output schema, the description provides a good summary. It mentions the API key requirement and full-page default. It could mention output format more, but overall completes the context.
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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all 10 parameters. The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond the high-level purpose and default for fullPage. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 captures screenshots of public URLs or raw HTML as PNG/JPEG images. It specifies 'full-page by default' and distinguishes from siblings (snapforge_markdown, snapforge_pdf, snapforge_signup) which serve different purposes.
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 provides clear context on when to use the tool (for screenshots) and a prerequisite (SnapForge API key) with an alternative if missing (call snapforge_signup). It does not explicitly exclude cases, but the purpose is well-defined.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
snapforge_signupSnapForge signup (free API key)AInspectCreate a free SnapForge account (100 renders, one-time free trial, not a monthly allowance) with just an email address and get the API key instantly. The key is bound to the current MCP session, so the screenshot/pdf/markdown tools work immediately after signup, no browser needed.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| Yes | Email address to attach the API key to (the key is also emailed there) |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| plan | Yes | Plan name (free) |
| apiKey | Yes | Your SnapForge API key |
| monthlyQuota | Yes | Renders included: 100 in total on the free trial (no monthly reset), per month on paid plans |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description fully discloses that signup results in a one-time free trial (100 renders, not monthly), returns an API key instantly bound to the session, and enables other tools without a browser. Annotations are minimal, so description carries the burden well.
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?
Two sentences with no waste, front-loaded with the core action first. Efficient and informative.
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 the single parameter, existence of output schema, and no nested objects, the description covers all necessary context: purpose, limitations, session binding, and enabling of sibling tools.
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 100%, and the description adds value beyond schema by explaining that the key is emailed and bound to the session, enhancing parameter understanding.
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 creates a free SnapForge account with an email and gets an API key. It distinguishes from sibling rendering tools by specifying signup as the prerequisite.
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 when needing a free API key to use sibling tools, and mentions the key is bound to the session. It lacks explicit instructions for when not to use it (e.g., already have an account), but context is clear.
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.
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!
