Diecut HQ: die-cut sticker PNG maker

Make a sticker

generate

Upload a logo, a label or a photo and get a die-cut sticker PNG: cut out, with an even white border and a transparent background, ready to print. With a redeem code that has credits it spends one credit and returns the clean PNG's URL. Without a code it returns a free watermarked preview URL and an unlock object that says how your user can pay.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "generate"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`code`	No	The redeem code your user got after paying on the site. Optional when the MCP connection already sends it as Authorization: Bearer.
`preset`	No	The style. Defaults to the first.
`prompt`	No	What the image shows, 3 to 400 characters. One subject works best. No real people. Give this OR image_url.
`image_url`	No	An https URL of an existing design (PNG, JPG or WebP, up to 24 MB). Its background is removed and its edge cleaned; nothing is redrawn.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedNov 13, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

The description adds real context the annotations do not: this call spends a credit, and the same call returns either a clean PNG URL or a watermarked preview plus an unlock object. That cost and dual-outcome disclosure is genuinely useful. But the annotations already declare openWorldHint, non-idempotency and non-destructiveness, and the description says nothing about what happens if a code has no credits, whether a failed call still charges, or size/latency limits, leaving gaps for a paid mutation with no output schema.

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?

Two dense sentences, front-loaded with what the tool produces, then the paid/free outcome split. No filler wording and no repetition of the title.

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?

With no output schema and zero required parameters, the description carries the return-shape burden and does so by naming the clean PNG URL, the watermarked preview URL, and the unlock object. The credit-spending condition is also covered. It falls slightly short on edge behavior such as a credit-less or invalid code and on whether prompt and image_url may be combined.

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 coverage is 100%, with each parameter self-documented (code, preset enum, prompt/image_url). The description reinforces the prompt-or-image_url intent and the credit role of code, but adds no syntax, format or constraint detail beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a concrete input-to-output transformation: an uploaded logo/label/photo becomes a die-cut sticker PNG with an even white border and transparent background. The output format and intent are unambiguous, and it is trivially distinguishable from the balance and redeem_info siblings.

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?

Gives clear conditional guidance: supply a redeem code with credits to get a clean PNG and spend one credit, or omit it to get a free watermarked preview plus an unlock object. It stops short of naming an alternative path (e.g., pointing at redeem_info to obtain a code) or stating exclusions, so it is strong context but not full when/when-not routing.

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

All Diecut HQ: die-cut sticker PNG maker tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?