mintpdf
This server provides two PDF generation tools: generate_pdf (for HTML or Markdown) and pdf_from_url (for public URLs). You can customize output with paper sizes (A4, Letter, Legal, A3, A5), orientation, margins, header/footer text, and page numbers. Generated PDFs are returned as temporary download URLs valid for one hour.
Click on "Install Server".
Wait a few minutes for the server to deploy. Once ready, it will show a "Started" state.
In the chat, type
@followed by the MCP server name and your instructions, e.g., "@mintpdfGenerate a PDF from https://example.com"
That's it! The server will respond to your query, and you can continue using it as needed.
Here is a step-by-step guide with screenshots.
MintPDF
HTML & Markdown → PDF, as a REST API and an MCP server.
No template editor. No template IDs. No dashboard. No signup to try.
Try it · MCP setup · API · Self-host · Security · Limitations
Send HTML or Markdown, get a PDF back. It is Chromium under the hood, with the print CSS already worked out so tables don't split across pages, table headers repeat, and Markdown comes out looking like a document rather than a text file.
Pagination is the point.
break-inside, repeatingthead, orphans and widows, and headers and footers that actually inherit your styling. See How it works.MCP native —
generate_pdfandpdf_from_urlover streamable HTTP, so an agent can produce a document mid-conversation.Documents aren't kept — rendered files are deleted after an hour, and their contents are never logged. Keys, emails and usage counters obviously are stored. See Security.
Run it yourself — MIT, with a published image. The hosted service exists so you don't have to operate Chromium, not because the renderer is secret.
Quickstart
No signup, no key:
curl -X POST https://mintpdf.dev/v1/pdf \
-H "Content-Type: application/json" \
-d '{"markdown":"# Invoice #42\n\n| Item | Price |\n|---|---|\n| Widget | $9.00 |","pageNumbers":true}' \
--output invoice.pdfWant more than 10 renders a day? A free key (email only, no card) raises it to 100 a month:
curl -X POST https://mintpdf.dev/v1/keys \
-H "Content-Type: application/json" \
-d '{"email":"you@example.com"}'
# → {"key":"pm_…","daily_limit":100} # 100 renders per monthThen send Authorization: Bearer pm_… with your requests.
Related MCP server: PDF Generator API MCP Server
Use it from Claude (or any MCP client)
{
"mcpServers": {
"mintpdf": {
"command": "npx",
"args": ["-y", "mintpdf-mcp"]
}
}
}Prefer the hosted endpoint directly? Use mcp-remote instead:
{
"mcpServers": {
"mintpdf": {
"command": "npx",
"args": ["-y", "mcp-remote", "https://mintpdf.dev/mcp"]
}
}
}Restart your client, then just ask:
"Summarise this thread as a one-page brief with page numbers and give me a PDF."
Tool | Input | Returns |
|
| download URL, valid 1 hour |
|
| download URL, valid 1 hour |
API
POST /v1/pdf
Body takes exactly one source, plus options:
Field | Type | Notes |
| string | Full document or fragment |
| string | Rendered with the default stylesheet |
| string | Public page to render. Private/internal addresses are blocked |
| string |
|
| boolean | default |
| string | all sides, e.g. |
| string | small text on every page |
| boolean | adds |
|
| default returns PDF bytes; |
POST /v1/keys
{"email":"you@example.com"} → a free key. No card, no verification loop.
POST /mcp
MCP streamable-HTTP endpoint, stateless. Same capabilities as the REST API.
Postman
A ready-made collection covering every endpoint and option lives in
postman/. Import it by link:
https://raw.githubusercontent.com/TrendTweekers/mintpdf/main/postman/mintpdf.postman_collection.jsonThe first request runs with no key at all, and fetching a free key stores it into the collection variable automatically, so the rest of the collection works straight after.
Limits
Tier | Limit | Price |
Anonymous | 10 renders/day per IP | free, no signup |
Free key | 100 renders/month | free, email only |
Solo | 3,000 renders/month | $19/month |
Team | 12,000 renders/month | $49/month |
Scale | 50,000 renders/month | $129/month |
Self-host
MintPDF is MIT-licensed; run your own if you'd rather.
npm install
npm run build
npm start # http://localhost:3000
node dist/smoke.js # end-to-end render checkOr pull the published image, which has Chromium and the fonts baked in:
docker run -p 3000:3000 \
-e BASE_URL=http://localhost:3000 \
-e DATA_DIR=/data -v mintpdf-data:/data \
ghcr.io/trendtweekers/mintpdf:latestThen it is the same API on your own machine, with no limits and nothing leaving it:
curl -X POST http://localhost:3000/v1/pdf \
-H "Content-Type: application/json" \
-d '{"markdown":"# Local","pageNumbers":true}' --output local.pdfImages are built and published by CI on every change, and each is smoke-tested by starting the
container and rendering a real PDF from it before being tagged. Tags are latest and the short
commit SHA. Building it yourself works too:
docker build -t mintpdf .
docker run -p 3000:3000 -e BASE_URL=http://localhost:3000 mintpdfEnvironment: BASE_URL (used in download links), DATA_DIR (defaults to /tmp/mintpdf; mount a
volume to persist keys), ANON_DAILY_LIMIT, FREE_MONTHLY_LIMIT, SOLO_MONTHLY_LIMIT,
TEAM_MONTHLY_LIMIT, SCALE_MONTHLY_LIMIT, OVERAGE_FACTOR, RENDER_CONCURRENCY,
RENDER_QUEUE, RENDER_QUEUE_WAIT_MS.
Load and admission control
Every render is a Chromium tab, so memory bounds concurrency long before CPU or cost does. Unbounded, a traffic spike opens a tab per request until the OOM reaper kills the container and every request fails, including ones nearly finished. Measured here: 30 concurrent renders with no gate left 30 orphaned Chrome processes and an unusable machine.
RENDER_CONCURRENCY renders run at once, RENDER_QUEUE more may wait, and anything beyond that is
refused immediately with 503 and a Retry-After rather than being allowed to pile up. Turning
some callers away in under a second is strictly better than serving everyone a timeout.
Code defaults are conservative (3 and 20). Measured on one small Railway instance at 10 and 70:
Burst | Served | Refused | Median | Wall clock | Instance after |
45 | 45 | 0 | 1.5s | 2.3s | healthy |
120 | 81 | 39 | 3.0s | 4.0s | healthy |
250 | 80 | 170 | 3.4s | 4.4s | healthy, 0.24s homepage |
Roughly 18 renders a second sustained, with the refused share answered in under 2.7s. Raise the numbers only against a measurement on your own instance size, never on hope.
If you want a fuller self-hosted PDF toolchain (Office formats, merging, splitting), Gotenberg is excellent and does more than this does.
Security
This service renders HTML and URLs supplied by anyone, so the interesting questions are about what that content can reach.
Submitted HTML executes JavaScript. It has to: Mermaid diagrams and KaTeX maths are rendered in the page. Treat the renderer as running untrusted code, which is why the network restrictions below matter more than they would for a static converter.
SSRF is blocked at two layers.
A submitted
urlis parsed, restricted tohttp/https, and resolved. If any resolved address is private, the request is refused with a 400 before a browser is involved.Independently, every request Chromium makes is intercepted and the destination resolved again at request time, then blocked if private. This covers embedded images, stylesheets, fonts, redirects and
fetch()from submitted JavaScript, not just the URL you asked for.
The second layer resolves rather than trusting the hostname, and caches only refusals, never approvals: caching "this host is public" would reopen the exact hole the check exists to close. Unresolvable names fail closed.
Being precise about what that does and does not achieve: a DNS-rebinding attempt can no longer wait out a cached approval, so it has to win a race between this lookup and Chromium's own, on every request. That is a much narrower target than a fixed window, but it is a narrowed race rather than a closed door. Eliminating it entirely means pinning the resolved address at the socket layer, which is not implemented.
Blocked: loopback, 0.0.0.0, RFC1918, CGNAT (100.64/10), link-local and cloud metadata
(169.254.169.254); IPv6 loopback, unspecified, link-local, site-local, unique-local, multicast,
NAT64 and Teredo; IPv4-mapped and IPv4-compatible forms in either spelling, so ::ffff:10.0.0.1
and ::ffff:a00:1 are the same address and both are refused; localhost/.local/.internal
names; any public hostname that resolves to a private address; and every scheme except http, https,
data and blob.
Addresses are judged from their bytes rather than by matching text, because the same address has many spellings and a text match catches one and misses the rest.
There is a test suite for exactly this, and it is meant to be run rather than trusted:
BASE=https://mintpdf.dev node scratchpad/ssrf_suite.mjsIt checks the bypasses above and that ordinary rendering still works, because a guard that also blocks web fonts is a different bug rather than a fix.
The IPv6 parser has its own table of adversarial literals, since an invalid string silently becoming a valid address is the failure that matters in this kind of code:
node scratchpad/ipv6_table_test.mjsDownload links use a crypto.randomUUID() identifier and are not authenticated: anyone with
the link can fetch the file for the hour it exists. That is deliberate, so a link can be emailed or
handed to a browser, but it means the link is the secret.
Logging. Request metadata is logged (method, path, status, duration). Request bodies are never logged, so the HTML and Markdown you send are not written anywhere except the temporary file. The analytics table stores event kind, path, referrer, country and a daily-salted hash of the IP. No document content, and no way to reconstruct a document from it.
Limitations
Worth knowing before you build on it.
Files are deleted after one hour. There is no document library and no way to fetch a render again later. Generate, use, done. If you need permanence, save the bytes on your side.
No Office formats, merging or splitting. This converts HTML, Markdown and web pages, and nothing else. Gotenberg is more mature and covers far more ground if you are self-hosting and need that.
One instance. Keys and quotas live in SQLite on a mounted volume, so running several replicas against one volume will not work. Horizontal scaling needs a real database first.
Renders are admission-controlled. Over capacity the API returns
503withRetry-Afterrather than queueing without limit. See the table above for measured behaviour.Two days old at the time of writing, with no paying users yet.
How it works
TypeScript, Fastify, and Puppeteer driving one shared Chromium with a page per request. node:sqlite
holds keys, quotas and events, so there are no native dependencies to build.
The parts that took the actual work are the unglamorous ones:
Print CSS.
break-inside: avoidon tables, rows, list items, code blocks, blockquotes and figures;thead { display: table-header-group }so headers repeat;orphans/widows;break-after: avoidon headings so none is stranded at the foot of a page.Header and footer templates, which are a separate document from your page: they ignore the page CSS and render at near-zero font size unless the styles are inlined, and they sit outside the content margins.
Admission control, because one Chromium tab per concurrent request is how the container runs out of memory.
Network isolation for a renderer that executes untrusted JavaScript. See Security.
Licence
MIT — see LICENSE.
Available Tools
2 toolsgenerate_pdfGenerate a PDF from HTML or MarkdownAInspect
Renders HTML or Markdown into a PDF and returns a download URL valid for one hour. Provide exactly one of html or markdown. Markdown is styled with a clean default stylesheet, so it is the quickest way to produce a presentable document.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| html | No | Full HTML document or fragment to render | |
| format | No | Paper size, default A4 | |
| margin | No | Margin on all sides, e.g. "18mm" | |
| markdown | No | Markdown content, rendered with the default stylesheet | |
| landscape | No | Landscape orientation, default false | |
| footerText | No | Small footer text on every page | |
| headerText | No | Small header text on every page | |
| pageNumbers | No | Show page numbers in the footer |
TDQS
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses a key behavioral trait: the download URL is 'valid for one hour.' It also explains the input constraint (exactly one of html/markdown) and Markdown's clean styling. It does not mention error handling or what happens if both inputs are provided, but it covers the most important behaviors.
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?
The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the main action, and every sentence adds value. There is no redundant information or filler, making it highly concise and well-structured.
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?
Given 8 parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description covers the core behavior (rendering and URL expiry) and the key constraint (one input). It does not enumerate all parameters, but the schema already describes them. The only minor gap is that the schema lists no required parameters while the description implies a required choice, but this is not a description deficiency.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value beyond the schema by clarifying the mutual exclusivity of html and markdown ('Provide exactly one of'), which is not enforced in the schema. It also gives context on Markdown's default styling. This raises the score above baseline.
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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Renders HTML or Markdown into a PDF and returns a download URL valid for one hour.' This is a specific verb+resource+output, and the input types (HTML/Markdown) distinguish it from the sibling tool pdf_from_url.
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 provides clear context on how to use the tool: 'Provide exactly one of html or markdown.' It also gives a practical tip about Markdown being quickest due to the default stylesheet. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus pdf_from_url, so it stops short of full exclusion guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
pdf_from_urlGenerate a PDF from a public URLAInspect
Loads a public web page and renders it to PDF, returning a download URL valid for one hour. Only public http/https addresses are allowed.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | Public http(s) URL of the page to render | |
| format | No | Paper size, default A4 | |
| margin | No | Margin on all sides, e.g. "18mm" | |
| landscape | No | Landscape orientation, default false | |
| footerText | No | Small footer text on every page | |
| headerText | No | Small header text on every page | |
| pageNumbers | No | Show page numbers in the footer |
TDQS
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the output type (download URL), the one-hour validity, and the public-URL restriction. It does not mention error handling, timeouts, or rendering limitations, but these are not critical for a straightforward URL-to-PDF conversion. This is better than a bare 'Generate PDF from URL'.
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?
The description is two concise sentences, front-loading the primary action and output. It avoids unnecessary details and earns every word, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.
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?
The description covers the core flow (load page, render PDF, return temporary URL) and explicitly mentions the one-hour validity, which is essential context absent from the schema. It does not describe failure modes or rate limits, but given the rich schema and simple interface, this is reasonably complete. The lack of an output schema is compensated by the description of the return value.
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?
Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides for each parameter. The optional formatting parameters (format, margin, landscape, etc.) are adequately documented in the schema and the description doesn't add context about their interactions.
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 uses a specific verb-resource pair: 'loads a public web page and renders it to PDF' and clearly states the output (download URL). It distinguishes from the sibling tool 'generate_pdf' by explicitly naming the input source (public URL) and the output behavior.
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?
It provides a clear constraint ('Only public http/https addresses are allowed') which informs the agent about valid inputs, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs the sibling 'generate_pdf' or mention any alternative usage scenarios. The guidance is mostly about prerequisites, not comparative usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Tool Schema Changelog
Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
2 tool updates
v1.0.0- First observed
generate_pdf - First observed
pdf_from_url
TDQS
Each tool accepts a different input source—local HTML/Markdown versus a public URL—so there is no overlap in usage. An agent can easily choose based on whether the content is available directly or needs to be fetched from the web.
Both tool names are clear and descriptive, but 'generate_pdf' uses a verb-first pattern while 'pdf_from_url' leads with a noun, creating a slight inconsistency. The naming is still readable and understandable, so the deviation is minor.
With only two tools, the server feels minimal for its purpose. It covers the two most common PDF generation scenarios but lacks additional options, making it borderline in terms of scope.
The server covers the essential workflows for PDF generation: creating from direct content or from a live URL. Missing features like advanced styling or batch processing are minor and not critical for the primary use case.
Maintenance
Related MCP Connectors
HTML-to-PDF MCP server — render pixel-faithful PDFs from HTML.
MCP server for Api2Pdf — generate PDFs & images from HTML, URLs or office files; merge, barcodes.
MCP server for the PDFGate API. Generate PDFs, manage documents and handle e-signatures.
Hosted MCP server: convert PDFs to clean, LLM-ready Markdown with tables, formulas and OCR.
Related MCP Servers
- AlicenseAqualityDmaintenanceAn MCP server for converting Markdown documents to PDF files.17637MIT
- FlicenseNot gradedqualityDmaintenanceThis MCP server enables interactions with the PDF Generator API for creating, converting, and managing PDF documents using natural language commands.-
- FlicenseAqualityDmaintenanceAn MCP server that enables bidirectional conversion between Markdown and PDF formats, including text extraction from specific pages and metadata retrieval. It supports customizable PDF output sizes and document processing through standard MCP tools.51-
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityAmaintenanceMCP server that reads PDFs and exposes them as structured Markdown, metadata, outlines, images, and tables to LLM consumers via tools like pdf_read_markdown and pdf_info.Apache 2.0
Latest Blog Posts
- Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)By Om-Shree-0709 on .mcpAgent IdentityOAuth 2.1
- Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an InternBy Om-Shree-0709 on .Agent IdentityMCP SecurityOAuth Delegation
- Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)By Om-Shree-0709 on .Agentic AiPrompt InjectionWebAssembly
MCP directory API
We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.
curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/TrendTweekers/mintpdf'
If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server