Render a web page to PDF exactly as a browser would print it. Use this to archive a page, produce a document from a rendered report, or capture something for a record. Returns a PDF file.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | The absolute URL to render, including https:// | |
| landscape | No | Landscape orientation. Defaults to false. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond the annotations by stating that rendering matches browser print behavior and that the result is a PDF file.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Three concise sentences deliver the function, use cases, and output type without wasted words. The core behavior is front-loaded and every sentence adds value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple two-parameter, read-only tool with fully described parameters and clear annotations, the description is complete enough. It gives the agent the purpose, output type, and appropriate use cases, and no critical missing information is apparent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage: the url parameter is explained and landscape has a clear default and description. The tool description does not add parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, which is acceptable given the schema's completeness.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description is specific: it names the verb 'render', the resource 'web page', and the output 'PDF', and clarifies that it behaves exactly as a browser would when printing. This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like screenshot_url or rendered_html, which produce different output formats.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives explicit use cases: archiving a page, producing a document from a rendered report, or capturing something for a record. It does not explicitly contrast this tool with alternatives like screenshot_url, but the stated contexts are clear enough to guide an agent.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
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.
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.
Six tools is a well-scoped count for a render/inspection server. Each tool covers a meaningful, non-redundant capability without bloating the surface.
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.