Skip to main content
Glama

api2pdf

by io.usefulapi

URL to image / screenshot (Chrome)

api2pdf_url_to_image
Destructive

Take a screenshot of a live web page by URL using headless Chrome. Returns a { FileUrl } (valid ~24h). BILLED. Api2Pdf API: POST /chrome/image/url.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
urlYesThe URL of the web page to screenshot.
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?

Beyond the destructiveHint annotation, the description discloses that the operation is BILLED, returns a short-lived FileUrl (~24h), and uses POST /chrome/image/url. It does not explain authentication prerequisites or failure behavior, but the cost and ephemeral-output warnings add real behavioral context.

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 front-loaded with the main action and contains no filler: action, output format/expiry, billing warning, and endpoint. 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?

For an 8-parameter tool with nested objects and no output schema, the description still gives the return shape, time-to-live, cost, and API endpoint. It could mention auth or load-wait behavior, but the schema covers parameter semantics, leaving only minor gaps.

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 descriptions already cover all eight parameters (100% coverage), so the description need not repeat them. It does not add extra parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides, hence the baseline 3.

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?

Description uses a specific verb and resource: 'Take a screenshot of a live web page by URL using headless Chrome.' This clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like api2pdf_url_to_pdf (PDF output) and api2pdf_html_to_image (HTML input rather than URL).

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 phrase 'live web page by URL' gives clear context for when to use it, but the description never names alternatives or states when not to use it (e.g., HTML strings should go to html_to_image). No exclusions are provided, so it earns a 4 rather than a 5.

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