Tanod MCP server

utilpeek: render Markdown to sanitized HTML

markdown_to_html

Read-onlyIdempotent

Convert Markdown into sanitized HTML with an allow-list sanitizer that strips scripts and unsafe links, returning clean HTML for safe embedding.

Instructions

utilpeek: Convert Markdown to sanitized HTML. For the reverse use html_to_text. Returns the HTML of a Markdown document (markdown-it-py; gfm adds tables, strikethrough, autolinks and task lists), cleaned by an allow-list sanitizer (nh3): no scripts, event handlers, iframes, forms or javascript:/data: links; every link gets rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer". HTML over 4 MB is a 422 output_too_large. Parsed in an isolated, resource-limited child process without network; input over its limits is a 422 (not charged). Typically under 0.5 s. Price: USD 0.001. Free: 10 utilpeek calls per IP per UTC day. Docs: https://tanod.dev/learn/markdown-to-html-api.html

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`flavor`	No	gfm (default) adds tables, strikethrough, autolinks and task lists.	gfm
`markdown`	Yes	Markdown source (at most 200,000 characters).

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`html`	No
`error`	No	Only on an error result: an object {code, message}, or the reason string of an x402 PaymentRequired object.
`flavor`	No
`source`	No
`sanitized`	No
`html_chars`	No
`removed_by_sanitizer`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.3.0Oct 15, 2026

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description adds substantial context beyond them: the exact sanitizer allow-list behavior, link rel rewriting, the 4 MB and input-limit 422s (one 'not charged'), child-process isolation with no network, and sub-0.5s latency.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Dense but front-loaded: conversion purpose first, then flavor/return behavior, then limits, pricing and docs. Every clause carries information, though the opening restates the title and the pricing/free-tier tail is slightly peripheral to invocation.

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

Completeness5/5

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

Because an output schema exists, return values need not be explained, yet the description still covers sanitization guarantees, size/input failure modes, isolation and cost. Nothing needed to call this tool correctly is missing.

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?

Schema coverage is 100% and the schema already documents both parameters, including the gfm flavor semantics and the 200,000-char cap. The description largely restates what the schema says, adding no syntax or format detail beyond it, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Convert Markdown to sanitized HTML') and immediately routes the agent to the reverse sibling ('For the reverse use html_to_text'), so it is distinguishable from html_to_text without opening either schema.

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?

Names the alternative tool and the condition that selects it (reverse direction). It doesn't spell out when *not* to use this tool beyond that, but for a single-purpose converter the routing context is clear.

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

Deploy Server