Printablesmith

Cryptogram

make_cryptogram

Read-onlyIdempotent

Make a printable cryptogram or secret code worksheet: a message (a quote, a riddle, a fun fact, a classroom message) written in a code of symbols, numbers or letters to decode, with a key and answers. Up to 8 messages of up to 200 characters.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "messages": "<messages>"
    },
    "name": "make_cryptogram"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`code`	No	What the letters become: symbols, numbers (A=1…) or letters (a letter swap).
`seed`	No	Which random version to make. Leave out for a fresh one; pass the seed from an earlier result to keep that version while changing other settings.
`paper`	No	Paper size: letter (US Letter, the default; US and Canada) or a4 (everywhere else).
`title`	No	The title printed at the top of the sheet, e.g. "Secret Message". Keep it short.
`for_kids`	No	Use the children’s secret code page (simpler code, bigger boxes).
`messages`	Yes	The messages to encode, each a sentence or two.
`key_shown`	No	The code key on the sheet: full (every letter), fill (some letters, the rest to work out) or none.
`decoration`	No	A themed border with matching pictures, drawn around the sheet: "line" for a plain border, "none" for nothing, or a theme such as halloween, christmas, thanksgiving, spring, dinosaurs, space, ocean, animals, birthday, back-to-school (95 themes; find_printables shows a theme’s name). Leave out for no border.
`difficulty`	No	easy gives away more letters, hard fewer.
`large_print`	No	Large print for older eyes or low vision: bigger, bolder letters and roomier layouts (sizes are capped to fit). For young children, use large.
`dyslexia_font`	No	Print in OpenDyslexic, a typeface some readers with dyslexia find easier.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description
`url`	Yes	The sheet on printablesmith.com, every setting filled in: open it to adjust, download the PDF or print
`seed`	No	The seed that rebuilds this exact sheet
`maker`	Yes	Which maker drew it, e.g. wordSearch
`notes`	Yes	Things worth knowing about this sheet
`title`	Yes	The sheet title
`playUrl`	No	Where a child can solve it on a screen (word search, crossword, maze, sudoku)
`summary`	Yes	What the sheet is
`settings`	Yes	The address settings, as the maker reads them

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedNov 11, 2026

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and a closed-world scope, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value by stating the output is a printable sheet containing the coded message, a key and answers, plus hard limits (8 messages, 200 characters each). It says nothing about generation cost, whether the sheet is downloadable, or how the seed interacts with results, which the schema covers instead. With annotations doing the heavy lifting and an output schema present, a 3 is appropriate.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

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

Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the deliverable and followed by the hard limits. The parenthetical content examples are useful, though they add bulk that could be trimmed slightly.

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 11-parameter generator with full schema coverage, an output schema, and annotations, the description supplies the essential framing: what artifact is produced, what it contains, and the input ceilings. The main gap is routing guidance versus sibling worksheet makers, which matters in a large catalog of similarly named generators.

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 description coverage is 100% and every parameter already carries a clear, often enum-bound description, so the schema does the semantic work. The description only restates the message count and length caps; it adds nothing about code type, difficulty, key_shown, paper size or seed behavior beyond what the schema says.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses a specific verb ('Make') plus resource ('printable cryptogram or secret code worksheet') and explains what a cryptogram is (a coded message with a key and answers). It distinguishes the artifact from generic printables but never names a sibling tool such as make_word_scramble to sharpen the boundary.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Usage is only implied through examples of suitable content (quotes, riddles, fun facts, classroom messages), which suggests a teaching/activity context. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or pointer to an alternative tool for similar decoding puzzles.

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

All Printablesmith 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?