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.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | The public http(s) URL of the page to render. | |
| format | No | Paper size. Default: A4. | |
| landscape | No | Render in landscape orientation. Default: false. | |
| background_graphics | No | Include background colors and images. Default: true. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.