Skip to main content
Glama

Server Details

Convert any public webpage to a PDF. Single narrow tool, not a bloated PDF toolkit.

Status
Healthy
Last Tested
Transport
Streamable HTTP
URL

Glama MCP Gateway

Connect through Glama MCP Gateway for full control over tool access and complete visibility into every call.

MCP client
Glama
MCP server

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.

100% free. Your data is private.
Tool DescriptionsA

Average 3.5/5 across 1 of 1 tools scored.

Server CoherenceA
Disambiguation5/5

Only one tool exists, so there is no possibility of confusion between tools. The purpose is clearly singular.

Naming Consistency5/5

The single tool name 'convert_url_to_pdf' follows a consistent verb_noun pattern, making it predictable.

Tool Count5/5

One tool is perfectly appropriate for the server's deliberately narrow and focused purpose of converting a single URL to a PDF.

Completeness5/5

The tool fully covers the intended functionality. There are no obvious missing operations given the stated scope of converting a webpage to PDF.

Available Tools

1 tool
convert_url_to_pdfAInspect

Convert a public webpage to a PDF and return a signed download URL (valid for 7 days). Deliberately narrow: one URL in, one PDF out. Requires a urltopdf.org Developer API key.

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
urlYesThe public http(s) URL of the page to render.
formatNoPaper size. Default: A4.
landscapeNoRender in landscape orientation. Default: false.
background_graphicsNoInclude background colors and images. Default: true.
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It states the download URL is signed and valid for 7 days, and that the tool is 'deliberately narrow.' However, it fails to mention authentication mechanism (how the API key is used), error handling for non-public URLs, rate limits, or any side effects. With no annotations, this is insufficient.

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?

Two sentences with no redundancy. The first sentence fronts the main action and return value; the second adds constraints and requirements. Every sentence earns its place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a tool with 4 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the return type (signed download URL, 7-day validity) and the prerequisite (API key). However, it omits details on error responses, authentication method, and edge cases (e.g., inaccessible URLs, size limits). Adequate but not thorough.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, so each parameter is already documented. The description does not add extra meaning beyond confirming 'one URL in, one PDF out.' Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema handles parameter semantics adequately.

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?

Description clearly states the tool converts a public webpage to PDF and returns a signed download URL. It specifies one URL in, one PDF out, making the scope unambiguous. No siblings to distinguish from, but the purpose is well-defined.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description mentions a prerequisite (urltopdf.org Developer API key), which is useful. However, it does not provide guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it explain context such as ideal use cases or limitations. Usage is implied but not explicit.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Discussions

No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!

Related MCP Servers

  • A
    license
    -
    quality
    B
    maintenance
    Captures full-page screenshots and PDFs from any URL using Chromium rendering, with pay-per-call via x402 micropayments.
    Last updated
    MIT

View all MCP Servers

Try in Browser

Your Connectors

Sign in to create a connector for this server.

Resources