QR Code Dinosaur

Create a QR code

create_qr_code

Free. Creates a QR code for a URL and returns a hosted PNG (imageUrl), optional SVG markup, and for "direct" codes a pageUrl your user can open to view and download it. Use variant "redirect" for a code that counts scans and, with Pro, can be pointed somewhere else later. Without an API key the result has a claimUrl: give it to your user so the code is added to their QR codes (it works for 30 days). Unsafe or non-public links are refused.

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": {
      "url": "<url>"
    },
    "name": "create_qr_code"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`url`	Yes	Where the QR code should send people. https:// is added if no scheme is given.
`format`	No	"png" (default) returns a hosted PNG. "svg" also returns the SVG markup.
`variant`	No	"direct" (default) encodes the URL itself. "redirect" encodes a scan link that counts scans and can be changed later with Pro.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedNov 12, 2026

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations only mark this as a non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent write; the description adds the behavior that actually matters: the tool is free, links are validated and unsafe/non-public links are refused, unauthenticated results carry a 30-day claimUrl the user must be given, and redirect destinations require Pro. That is meaningful disclosure well beyond the annotation set.

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?

Front-loads "Free." then purpose, then variant routing, then the auth caveat, then the refusal condition — a sensible priority order with no filler. The sentences are long and pack several facts each, which slightly hurts scanability but nothing is wasted.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the burden of describing returns and does so field by field (imageUrl, SVG markup, pageUrl, claimUrl with its 30-day lifetime). For a three-parameter creation tool, an agent has everything needed to call it and to handle the response correctly.

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%, including both enums, so the baseline is 3. The description largely restates the schema's variant semantics and adds only the Pro detail about repointing redirect codes later, which is useful but not parameter-level depth.

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 specific verb and resource ("Creates a QR code for a URL") and immediately enumerates what comes back (imageUrl, SVG markup, pageUrl), so the agent knows exactly what the call produces. It also distinguishes the two code types, which is the main source of ambiguity for this tool.

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 concrete selection guidance: use "redirect" when scan counting or later destination changes matter, otherwise the default direct code. It also tells the agent what to do with claimUrl when no API key is present. It stops short of naming a sibling as the alternative for editing a destination later (update_destination exists), but the in-tool routing is clear.

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

All QR Code Dinosaur 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?