Skip to main content
Glama

api2pdf

by io.usefulapi

Compress PDF (PDFSharp)

api2pdf_compress_pdf
Destructive

Compress an existing PDF (given as a URL) to reduce its file size. Returns a { FileUrl } (valid ~24h). BILLED. Api2Pdf API: POST /pdfsharp/compress.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
urlYesURL of the PDF to compress.
inlineNoIf true (Api2Pdf default), the generated file is served inline; if false, as an attachment.
optionsNoEngine-specific render options (page size, margins, orientation, headers/footers, etc.). Passed through verbatim to Api2Pdf.
storageNoCustom storage target, used when useCustomStorage is true.
fileNameNoA name for the generated file, e.g. 'invoice.pdf'.
output_binaryNoIf true, return the raw file bytes as base64 instead of a FileUrl. Default false (recommended for agents — returns a short-lived link).
extraHTTPHeadersNoExtra HTTP headers Api2Pdf forwards when it fetches a source URL (e.g. auth for a protected page/file).
useCustomStorageNoIf true, Api2Pdf uploads the result to your own storage (see `storage`) instead of hosting it.

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 declare destructiveHint=true, so the safety/impact profile is partially provided. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond this: the operation is BILLED, returns a FileUrl valid for ~24h, and maps to a specific API endpoint. It does not contradict the annotation.

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?

Three short sentences carry all essential information: what the tool does, the input format, the output shape, the time limit, billing, and the API endpoint. There is no filler or redundancy.

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?

The description plus the fully-documented schema covers the required URL parameter, the returned FileUrl, its 24h validity, and billing implications. Given the rich schema and no output schema, this is sufficient for an agent to invoke the tool correctly. It could add error/edge-case detail, but nothing essential 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 description coverage is 100%, and every parameter already has a clear description in the schema. The tool description adds only the URL-as-input context and FileUrl output, but does not need to compensate for missing parameter documentation.

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 uses a specific verb ('Compress') with a clear resource ('an existing PDF (given as a URL)') and outcome ('reduce its file size'). It is immediately distinguishable from sibling tools like merge_pdfs, extract_pages, and delete_file, and the title adds the PDFSharp engine context.

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?

The description clearly implies when to use the tool: when an existing PDF is available via URL and the goal is size reduction. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the context is unambiguous enough for selection.

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

All api2pdf 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 distinct operation: conversions, PDF manipulations, file deletion, and account/service info are clearly separated. Even the three HTML-to-PDF tools are distinguished by source type or rendering engine.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tools follow a consistent api2pdf_ prefix with snake_case verb-based names such as add_password, merge_pdfs, and url_to_pdf. The pattern is predictable and makes it easy to infer what each tool does.

Tool Count4/5

Sixteen tools is slightly above the typical 3-15 range, but the count is justified by the breadth of Api2Pdf's functionality spanning creation, manipulation, conversion, deletion, and account management.

Completeness5/5

The surface covers the full PDF lifecycle: generate from multiple sources, manipulate via merge/extract/compress/password, convert to markdown, delete files, plus billing and status checks. No obvious missing operations for the documented purpose.

Resources