wraith-mcp

by Koreahwan

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Python

Hybrid

pdf

Render any webpage to a PDF file using headless Chromium and receive it as base64-encoded output.

Instructions

Render a webpage to PDF and return it as a base64-encoded PDF.

Keyless — navigates and renders directly, no LLM. Headless only (Chromium prints PDF only in headless mode).

Args: url: URL to render

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "url": "<url>"
    },
    "name": "pdf"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`url`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.2.2Aug 6, 2026

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that it's keyless (no LLM), headless only, and returns base64-encoded PDF, which informs the agent about the output and execution mode. It doesn't cover error handling or timeouts, but the core behavior is transparent.

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 concise and front-loaded, using three sentences plus an args line. It gets directly to the point with no extraneous 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's simplicity (one param) and presence of an output schema, the description covers the essential behavior: rendering URL to base64 PDF, headless mode, and keyless operation. It doesn't discuss failure modes, but the main usage scenario is well specified.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by defining 'url: URL to render'. This adds meaning beyond the schema's just type and required flag. The single parameter is fully explained.

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 'Render a webpage to PDF and return it as a base64-encoded PDF' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like screenshot by specifying PDF format and includes constraints (headless, keyless).

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 provides context on when to use: it mentions keyless, headless-only, and direct rendering, which implies it's for straightforward PDF capture without LLM processing. However, it doesn't explicitly name alternative tools or exclusion criteria, so not a 5.

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

Deploy Server

pdf