@true402.dev/mcp-server

screenshot

Render a web page in headless Chromium and return a PNG screenshot as base64 JSON. POST { url, fullPage?, width? }; an unpaid request returns 402. Flat-priced per request.

Instructions

Render a web page in headless Chromium and return a PNG screenshot as base64 JSON. POST { url, fullPage?, width? }; an unpaid request returns 402. Flat-priced per request. (PAID x402 service — USDC on Base; the MCP server needs a funded wallet to settle.) Price: $0.004 USD (fixed).

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
`url`	Yes	The page URL to render (http/https)
`width`	No	Viewport width 320–1920; default 1280
`fullPage`	No	Full-page capture (height clamped to 8000px); default false

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Addedv1.3.0Oct 22, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it names the rendering engine (headless Chromium), the exact return payload format (base64 PNG in JSON), the 402 payment-failure behavior, the x402/USDC-on-Base settlement model, and a fixed $0.004 price. These are behavioral facts an agent cannot get from the schema.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and return format, then the payment terms. Slightly redundant in saying both 'flat-priced per request' and 'Price: $0.004 USD (fixed)', but no sentence is wasted.

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?

There is no output schema, yet the description states exactly what comes back (base64 PNG JSON) and covers the payment/auth requirement that would otherwise block a call. For a 3-parameter paid endpoint, nothing an agent needs before invoking 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 already documents url, width (320–1920, default 1280), and fullPage (clamped to 8000px). The description only restates the payload shape as `{ url, fullPage?, width? }`, adding default/optionality emphasis but no new semantics, so 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 and resource ('Render a web page in headless Chromium') plus the concrete output ('PNG screenshot as base64 JSON'). That clearly separates it from siblings like web_extract, link_preview, and serp, which return text/link/metadata rather than rendered images.

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?

It gives the precondition that an unpaid request returns 402 and that the server needs a funded wallet, which is essential usage context. It never states when to prefer this over web_extract or link_preview, nor any when-not conditions beyond payment, so usage is implied rather than spelled out.

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