@melis-ai/x402-tools-mcp

screenshot

Capture a PNG image of any public URL using headless Chromium. Choose width and full-page options, receive a base64-encoded result.

Instructions

[$0.02 USDC] Headless Chromium PNG screenshot of any public URL. Returns base64 PNG.

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": "screenshot"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`url`	Yes
`width`	No
`fullPage`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.2Jul 28, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral disclosure burden. It mentions the underlying technology (Headless Chromium) and output format, but does not disclose limitations like rate limits, timeouts, or failure modes. Incomplete for a paid tool.

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?

The description is extremely concise (one sentence) and front-loads essential info (cost, technology, output). No wasted words, though it could add brief parameter details without losing conciseness.

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

Completeness2/5

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

Given no output schema and no annotations, the description lacks completeness. It explains the output format (base64 PNG) but omits error handling, supported URL details, and behavioral constraints. Overall insufficient for a tool with 3 parameters.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain any parameters. While 'url' is self-explanatory, 'width' and 'fullPage' are ambiguous and undocumented.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states it takes a PNG screenshot of any public URL using Headless Chromium. It is specific about the action and resource, and while not explicitly distinguishing from siblings, the name and context make its purpose clear.

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 implies the tool is for public URLs but provides no guidance on when not to use it or alternatives (e.g., using pdf_render for PDF output). Lacks explicit exclusions or context.

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

Deploy Server