Skip to main content
Glama

api2pdf

by io.usefulapi

HTML to image (Chrome)

api2pdf_html_to_image
Destructive

Render an HTML string to an image using headless Chrome. Returns a { FileUrl } (valid ~24h) by default, or base64 bytes with output_binary:true. BILLED. Api2Pdf API: POST /chrome/image/html.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
htmlYesThe HTML source to render into an image.
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

A4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Beyond the destructiveHint annotation, the description adds valuable context: the operation is BILLED, the default return is a FileUrl valid for ~24h, and output_binary:true switches to base64 bytes. This informs cost and result-handling expectations, exceeding what annotations alone provide.

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 sentences with no fluff: the purpose, key output modes, billing, and API endpoint are all essential. The action is front-loaded, and every sentence earns its place.

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 covers input, output encoding, URL validity, cost, and endpoint, which is sufficient for a basic invocation. It omits guidance on advanced parameters (storage, headers) and alternative selection, but the schema is detailed enough to compensate.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds the 'valid ~24h' detail and clarifies the output_binary behavior, but this largely mirrors the schema's parameter descriptions and does not significantly deepen parameter understanding.

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: 'Render an HTML string to an image using headless Chrome.' This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like api2pdf_url_to_image (URL source) and api2pdf_html_to_pdf (PDF output).

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 implies use for HTML-string-to-image conversion but never explicitly contrasts it with alternatives or states when not to use it. An agent can infer the niche, but no exclusions or alternative routing are provided.

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