Skip to main content
Glama
urlbox

Urlbox MCP Server

Official
by urlbox
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
TypeScript
Remote

Server Quality Checklist

58%
Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

  • Latest release: v1.0.3

  • Disambiguation5/5

    The two tools, download and render, have clearly distinct purposes: one for rendering websites with advanced options, the other for downloading render URLs to the file system. No ambiguity.

    Naming Consistency4/5

    Both tool names are single verbs (download, render), which is consistent within the set. While not following a typical verb_noun pattern, they are uniformly imperative and predictable.

    Tool Count3/5

    With only 2 tools, the server feels minimal for its stated purpose of website rendering and file downloading. It covers primary actions but lacks supporting tools like listing or deleting renders, making it slightly thin.

    Completeness3/5

    The core workflow of rendering and downloading is covered, but there are notable gaps such as status checking, authentication, or render management. The inclusion of download as a separate tool is useful, but overall the surface is incomplete for a full rendering service.

  • Average 3/5 across 2 of 2 tools scored.

    See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.

    • No community issues in the last 6 months
    • 0 commits in the last 12 weeks
    • No stable releases found
    • No critical vulnerability alerts
    • No high-severity vulnerability alerts
    • No code scanning findings
    • CI status not available

  • This repository is licensed under MIT License.

  • This repository includes a README.md file.

  • No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.

    Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.

  • Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.

  • If you are the author, simply .

    If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:

    {
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}

    Then . Browse examples.

  • Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

  • Behavior2/5

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

    With no annotations, the description must fully explain behavior. It mentions deduplication ('hasn't already been downloaded') and saving to the file system, but lacks details on file naming, location, overwrite behavior, permissions, error handling, or whether all URLs are downloaded simultaneously.

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

    Conciseness3/5

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

    The description is a single sentence that attempts to cover multiple aspects, but it is somewhat wordy and could be broken into two sentences for clarity. Not overly verbose but not optimally concise.

    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?

    The tool has no output schema and a complex nested parameter (originalOptions). The description does not explain what the tool returns after download, whether it confirms success, or how it handles the many nested options. Missing information about progress, errors, or side effects beyond saving to file system.

    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%, so baseline is 3. The description does not add significant meaning beyond the schema; the originalOptions are implied for filename generation but not explained. The individual URL parameters are straightforward based on their names.

    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 downloads render URLs from Urlbox responses to the user's file system. It distinguishes from the sibling tool 'render' by indicating it operates on previous responses. However, 'that hasn't already been downloaded' is ambiguous and could be clarified.

    Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

    Usage Guidelines2/5

    Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

    No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'render'. The implication that it is used after a render response is not explicit. No when-not or exclusions provided.

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

  • Behavior2/5

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

    No annotations provided, so description must carry the burden. It adds some behavioral info (POST API, side renders, store_renders flag) but lacks details on error handling, rate limits, auth requirements, or conflicts between options. The description is too brief given the tool's complexity.

    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 a single paragraph but front-loaded with core purpose and key option. The list of use cases is somewhat rambling but overall relatively concise for a tool with 118 parameters.

    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 the high parameter count and lack of output schema/annotations, the description is insufficiently comprehensive. It does not explain response format, error handling, or how to combine side renders with main output, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent.

    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 description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description's generic mention of options (format, html, css, js, saves) adds minimal value beyond the already detailed parameter descriptions in the schema.

    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 uses Urlbox.com's POST API for advanced rendering, mentioning side renders and multiple output formats. It distinguishes from the sibling 'download' tool by noting how to save renders for later download via store_renders.

    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 lists ideal use cases (e.g., converting websites, extracting metadata, saving cookies) but does not specify when not to use this tool or provide alternatives. No guidance on prerequisites or handling side renders.

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

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

  • Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
  • Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
  • Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

urlbox-mcp-server MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Score Badge

urlbox-mcp-server MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/urlbox/urlbox-mcp-server'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server