Skip to main content
Glama

render-mcp

by io.github.RodRomer

page_diagnostics

Read-only

Load a page in a real browser and report what went wrong: JavaScript console errors and warnings, network requests that failed, and the HTTP status of the page itself. Use this when a site looks broken, a deployment might have shipped a bug, or a page loads blank and you need to know why. An agent cannot see a browser's console any other way.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
urlYesThe absolute URL to load, including https://
widthNoViewport width in pixels. 320-2560. Defaults to 1280.
heightNoViewport height in pixels. 240-2000. Defaults to 800.
include_warningsNoInclude console warnings and info messages, not just errors. Defaults to false.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already signal read-only and open-world behavior. The description adds that it runs a real browser and reports specific diagnostic categories, which is useful context. It could disclose more about timeouts, auth-dependent pages, or result format, but the core behavior is transparent.

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 tight and front-loaded: what it does, when to use it, and why it is uniquely valuable. Every sentence earns its place with no filler.

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?

There is no output schema, but the description enumerates the report contents well enough for an agent to know what will be returned. Missing details like response format, timeouts, or page-load edge cases are minor given the tool's clarity.

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 the schema already documents all parameters with defaults and ranges. The description adds no param-specific meaning beyond mentioning console warnings, which is slightly ambiguous since include_warnings defaults to false, but the schema resolves this.

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 states a specific verb and resource: load a page in a real browser and report console errors/warnings, failed network requests, and HTTP status. It clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings like screenshot_url or rendered_html by focusing on failure diagnostics.

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?

Gives explicit use cases: a site looks broken, a deployment may have shipped a bug, or a page loads blank. It does not name sibling tools or provide when-not-to-use guidance, so it misses the top score.

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

All render-mcp toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Each tool targets a clearly distinct concern: accessibility violations, computed layout, console/network errors, post-JS HTML, screenshots, and PDF output. There is no realistic overlap where an agent would be unsure which tool to call.

Naming Consistency3/5

All names are lowercase snake_case and readable, but the pattern is mixed: inspect_element and screenshot_url are imperative, while accessibility_audit, page_diagnostics, rendered_html, and url_to_pdf are noun-like or descriptive phrases. A uniform verb_noun style would make the set more predictable.

Tool Count5/5

Six tools is a well-scoped count for a render/inspection server. Each tool covers a meaningful, non-redundant capability without bloating the surface.

Completeness4/5

The set covers the core rendered-page workflows: getting content, seeing it, printing it, auditing accessibility, inspecting layout, and diagnosing errors. A minor gap is the lack of interaction or script execution tools, but for the stated rendering/diagnostics purpose the coverage is strong.

Resources