qrlia

Update QR code

qrs_update

Change a QR code's label, status (active/paused/archived), content (payload, validated for its type), target URL, design, folder or access controls (password, start/expiry date, scan limit, fallback). The printed code stays the same and follows the change immediately.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`id`	Yes
`label`	No
`access`	No	Password, start date, expiry date or scan limit.
`status`	No	paused/archived QRs stop redirecting; active resumes.
`payload`	No	Replace the QR's content. Same shape as the type's create field (e.g. profile, menu, wifi payload); validated against the QR's type. The printed code does not change.
`designId`	No	Saved design (designs_list) to render this QR with.
`folderId`	No	Folder to file the QR in; null = company root. Plan feature qr_folders.
`tracking`	No	Analytics tags and opt-in location for the landing page; URL codes show a short consent page first.
`targetUrl`	No	URL QRs only: shorthand for changing payload.targetUrl.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed3 schema fields changedOct 21, 2026

changedInput schema / properties / access / properties / fallbackUrl / anyOf

Previous value: -[
-  {
-    "format": "uri",
-    "type": "string"
-  },
-  {
-    "type": "null"
-  }
-]New value: +[
+  {
+    "maxLength": 2000,
+    "type": "string"
+  },
+  {
+    "type": "null"
+  }
+]

removedInput schema / properties / targetUrl / format
```
Removed value: -"uri"
```
addedInput schema / properties / targetUrl / maxLength
```
Added value: +2000
```

First observedOct 18, 2026

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already establish the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false). The description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: the printed code is unchanged and the change propagates immediately, plus payload is validated against the QR's type. It does not state whether omitted fields are left untouched or cleared, which is the main remaining gap for a partial-update tool.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the mutation scope and ending with the key invariant about the printed code. Dense but readable; the parenthetical field list is long yet each item earns its place as a discoverability cue.

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 9-parameter tool with nested objects and no output schema, the description covers the mutable surface, payload validation, and the printed-code invariant, while annotations handle safety. Missing is partial-update semantics (unset fields) and any permission/plan caveats, which the agent would have to mine from the schema.

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 78%, so the schema already carries most parameter meaning (access sub-fields, tracking, folderId plan gating, targetUrl shorthand). The description restates the field groups without adding format or constraint detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource ('Change a QR code's...') and enumerates the mutable surface: label, status, payload, target URL, design, folder, access controls. An agent immediately knows this mutates an existing QR rather than creating one, but no sibling (qrs_get, qrs_bulk_create, qrs_create) is named 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 Guidelines2/5

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

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as qrs_get for reading or qrs_bulk_create for batch work. The only usage signal is the implicit requirement of an existing QR (the required 'id'), which the agent could infer from the name alone.

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

All qrlia 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?