veilbrowser

veil_pdf

Render the current page to a PDF file and save it to disk. Configure landscape, background printing, scale, and page ranges.

Instructions

Render the current page to a PDF and save it to disk — Chrome prints PDF in HEADLESS mode only (VEIL_HEADLESS=1). Pass path for the output file, or omit to write a temp file; returns the saved path. Options: landscape, printBackground (default true), scale, pageRanges.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "veil_pdf"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`path`	No	output .pdf path (default: a temp file)
`scale`	No
`landscape`	No
`pageRanges`	No	e.g. "1-3, 5"
`printBackground`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.5.0Jul 29, 2026

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that Chrome prints PDF only in headless mode and returns the saved path. It mentions default behavior for path omission. Could be improved by noting error conditions if headless mode is not set, but overall adequate.

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: two sentences. First sentence covers purpose and key behavioral constraint. Second sentence lists options efficiently. No wasted words.

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 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description provides a solid overview. It explains the return value (saved path) and a critical prerequisite (headless mode). Could mention error handling or that the file is written to disk, but the core information is present.

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

Parameters5/5

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

Schema coverage is 40% (2 of 5 parameters have descriptions). The description adds meaning to all parameters: explains path defaults, landscape, printBackground (default true), scale, and pageRanges. This supplements the schema significantly, compensating for low coverage.

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 explicitly states the tool renders the current page to a PDF and saves it to disk. The verb 'render' and resource 'current page to PDF' are specific, and it distinguishes from sibling tools like veil_screenshot (image capture) by focusing on PDF generation.

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 (to save PDF) and a key requirement (headless mode via VEIL_HEADLESS=1). It also explains default behavior (temp file if no path). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or compare to alternatives like veil_screenshot.

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