SnapForge

SnapForge PDF

snapforge_pdf

Read-only

Render 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).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`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)

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`bytes`	Yes	Size of the generated PDF in bytes
`mimeType`	Yes	Always application/pdf

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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.

Conciseness5/5

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.

Completeness4/5

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.

Parameters3/5

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.

Purpose5/5

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.

Usage Guidelines4/5

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.

All SnapForge tools Inspect

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

A4.4/5.0

Disambiguation5/5

Each rendering tool targets a distinct output format (Markdown, PDF, screenshot), and the signup tool serves a separate purpose. No overlap or ambiguity.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tool names follow a consistent 'snapforge_<format>' pattern, with the signup tool fitting the same convention. No mixing of styles.

Tool Count5/5

With 4 tools covering rendering to three common formats plus account creation, the count is well-scoped for the server's purpose.

Completeness4/5

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.

Resources

Need Help?