Screenshots, PDFs and Markdown from any URL or HTML for AI agents, via the SnapForge API
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 4.2/5 across 4 of 4 tools scored.
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: markdown extraction, PDF rendering, screenshot capture, and account signup. No overlap or ambiguity.
All tools follow the same 'snapforge_<format>' pattern, making them predictable and easy to distinguish.
Four tools is well-scoped for a service that converts URLs/HTML to different formats plus a signup process. Neither sparse nor excessive.
Covers the core conversion tasks (markdown, PDF, screenshot) and the necessary signup flow. Minor missing features like configurable screenshot options, but no major gaps for the stated purpose.
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 (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false) already indicate a safe read operation. The description adds value by disclosing the API key requirement and the nature of the tool (extraction of web content). It does not contradict annotations, and the description's claim of 'Extract' aligns with the readOnlyHint.
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, front-loaded with the core action and resource. Every sentence serves a purpose: first sentence states what the tool does, second adds use case and prerequisite. No wasted words.
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 output schema exists, the description does not need to explain return values. It covers input types (URL/HTML), required API key, and a typical use case. It lacks mention of the optional parameters (delay, waitUntil) but those are documented in the schema. For a read-only extraction tool, the description is fairly complete.
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 schema already describes all parameters. The description reiterates the two main inputs ('public URL or raw HTML') but adds no extra syntax or format details beyond what the schema provides. A score of 3 is appropriate given the high schema coverage.
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 extracts a clean Markdown version of a public URL or raw HTML, using article extraction and HTML-to-Markdown conversion. The mention of 'SnapForge URL to Markdown' in the title and the explicit verb 'Extract' with resource 'Markdown version' strongly distinguishes it from sibling tools like snapforge_pdf and snapforge_screenshot.
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 a specific use case ('Great for feeding live web content to an LLM') and a prerequisite ('Requires a SnapForge API key'), and directs users to snapforge_signup if no key. While it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools beyond purpose, the context of Markdown extraction is implied as the unique use case.
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?
Annotations provide readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, etc. The description adds context about requiring an API key and returning an embedded resource. No contradictions, but no additional behavioral details (e.g., size limits, timeouts) are disclosed.
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, front-loaded with purpose and a key usage note. No filler; every sentence adds value.
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 tool has 9 parameters and an output schema, but the description covers the core function and a critical prerequisite. It is sufficient for agent selection; missing details are likely in the schema and 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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description briefly mentions 'public URL or raw HTML', a reference to two parameters, but adds no further meaning 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 clearly states 'Render a public URL or raw HTML to a PDF', specifying the action and resource. The title 'SnapForge PDF' and sibling context (markdown, screenshot) make the tool's purpose distinct.
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 mentions the prerequisite of an API key and directs users without a key to snapforge_signup. However, it does not explicitly compare to siblings or specify when not to use this tool.
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 indicate read-only and open-world behavior. Description adds capture context (full-page, API key) but does not disclose rate limits or other constraints. No contradiction 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?
Two concise sentences with all key information front-loaded. No redundant text.
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 high parameter count (10) but full schema coverage and output schema present, description covers purpose, prerequisites, and defaults adequately. Could mention output schema briefly.
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% with detailed descriptions per parameter. Description adds no extra parameter semantics beyond mentioning URL vs HTML choice and default format. Baseline 3.
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 a screenshot from a URL or raw HTML as PNG/JPEG, mentions full-page default, and distinguishes from siblings by requiring SnapForge API key. Specific verb and resource.
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?
Explicitly mentions API key prerequisite and suggests signup alternative, provides default behavior (full-page). Does not explicitly state when not to use, but context with siblings is clear.
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 adds significant behavioral context beyond annotations: it specifies the one-time free trial nature (100 renders, not monthly), that the key is bound to the current MCP session, and that no browser is needed. Annotations are non-contradictory.
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, front-loaded with critical information (free trial, instant key, session binding). No wasted words; every sentence adds value.
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 simplicity (1 parameter, clear purpose), the description is complete enough. It explains the effect and prerequisite. Could mention the output (e.g., returns the key), but the immediate result is implied and the focus on enabling sibling tools is sufficient.
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?
The schema covers 100% of parameters with description, and the description adds extra context: 'the key is also emailed there', which informs the user of an additional effect beyond the immediate API key return.
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 it creates a free SnapForge account with just an email and returns an API key instantly. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools (snapforge_markdown, snapforge_pdf, snapforge_screenshot) by being the signup step that enables them.
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 implicitly guides when to use this tool (before using screenshot/pdf/markdown tools) by stating the key is bound to the session and those tools work immediately. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives.
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!
Sign in to create a connector for this server.
