qr_codeEncode text or a URL as a QR code and return a crisp, dependency-free SVG you can paste straight into a page, deck or doc.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ecc | No | Error-correction level: L=7%, M=15%, Q=25%, H=30% recoverable. | M |
| size | No | SVG pixel size. | |
| text | Yes | Text or URL to encode. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| svg | Yes | The QR code as SVG markup. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds context beyond the readOnlyHint annotation by specifying the output is a crisp, dependency-free SVG that can be pasted directly. This clarifies the return format and quality, which is useful behavioral information. No contradictions with the annotations.
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?
A single, well-structured sentence that immediately states the action, input, and output. It is concise with no wasted words, and the key information is front-loaded.
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 adequately covers the tool's purpose, input, and output format, and the presence of an output schema reduces the need to explain return values. It could mention error-correction or size limits, but those are already in the schema, so overall it is complete enough for a simple generation tool.
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 schema already provides full descriptions for all three parameters (text, ecc, size), covering their meanings and defaults. The description adds no additional parameter-specific semantics beyond confirming that text or a URL is encoded, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 encodes text or a URL into a QR code and returns an SVG. It uses a specific verb (encode) and resource (QR code), and distinguishes itself from sibling tools by its unique output format and dependency-free nature.
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 implies the primary use case—generating a QR code for embedding in pages, decks, or docs—but does not explicitly exclude alternative tools. Since no sibling tool overlaps with QR generation, the context is clear enough, though not as explicit as naming alternatives.
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 has a clearly distinct purpose: base64 encoding, color conversion, string counting, hashing, image format comparison, JSON formatting, JWT decoding, image optimization, QR code generation, slugification, storage capacity calculation, and UUID generation. No two tools overlap in functionality.
Tool names are mostly consistent using lowercase and underscores, but they mix patterns: some are nouns (color, hash, uuid), some verbs (count, slugify), and some verb_noun pairs (jwt_decode, optimize_image). This minor inconsistency is still readable.
With 12 tools, the count is well within the ideal range. Each tool serves a specific and useful utility function, making the set well-scoped for a general-purpose developer toolkit.
The tool set covers a broad range of common web development utilities (encoding, colors, hashing, JSON, images, UUIDs). Minor gaps like URL encoding or HTML escaping are missing, but the core functionalities are well-represented.