Skip to main content
Glama

Labelixa

by com.labelixa
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Render CPCL label

cpcl_preview
Read-onlyIdempotent

Render CPCL label code and return a PNG preview. The preview assumes 203 dpi and is an interpretation of the CPCL manual covering a core command subset — no physical printer validation. labels in the response is the TOTAL number of labels the stream prints (a stream may contain several, each ended by PRINT); pass index to render a different one.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
cpclYesRaw CPCL code
indexNoLabel index in the stream

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / index
      Added value: +{
+  "default": 0,
+  "description": "Label index in the stream",
+  "type": "integer"
+}
  2. Added

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds meaningful behavioral details: the rendering is an interpretation at 203 dpi, not printer-verified, and it explains how to navigate multi-label streams through the `labels` field and `index` parameter. Nothing contradicts 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.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is three sentences, with the primary purpose first, followed by key assumptions and finally the response semantics. Every sentence carries distinct, necessary information—no fluff or redundancy.

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 a preview tool without an output schema, the description covers the essential operational aspects: what the tool does, its rendering assumptions, and how to handle multiple labels. It does not discuss error behavior for invalid CPCL, but that might be reasonably delegated to the separate validation tool. Overall, it provides enough for an agent to call it correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema covers both parameters fully with clear descriptions (100% coverage). The description enhances the `index` parameter by explaining that the response's `labels` field counts total labels and that `index` selects a specific one. This goes beyond the schema, which only says 'Label index in the stream.' The `cpcl` parameter gains no additional meaning, but the overall added value justifies a score above baseline.

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 opens with a clear action: 'Render CPCL label code and return a PNG preview.' This specifies the verb, resource, and output format, and it naturally differentiates from validation or other language preview descriptors. The additional DPI and interpretation notes further clarify the scope.

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?

It provides clear context on how to use the tool: the `index` parameter selects among multiple labels, and the response's `labels` field indicates the total. It notes that there is 'no physical printer validation,' which implicitly separates this from a validation tool, but it does not explicitly name alternatives like `cpcl_validate` or state conditions for choosing one over the other.

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

All Labelixa toolsInspect
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