Decode a QR code from a base64 image or public HTTPS image URL. Output: { data: string } with decoded payload.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| imageUrl | No | Public HTTPS image URL | |
| imageBase64 | No | Raw image bytes as base64 |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description does not contradict this; the operation is a read-only decode. The description adds useful context by naming input sources and the exact output format. However, it does not disclose potential edge behaviors such as network access for URLs, size limits, or failure modes.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences with no filler. The primary action and input options are front-loaded, and the output format is stated compactly. Every sentence contributes useful information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple two-parameter tool with a clear oneOf schema and no output schema, the description supplies the missing return-value information ({ data: string }). Combined with the schema and read-only annotation, an agent has everything needed to select and invoke the tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%: both imageBase64 and imageUrl already have descriptions in the schema. The tool description adds little beyond restating that either input can be used, so it does not significantly extend the schema's parameter documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Decode'), names the exact resource ('a QR code'), and specifies the two accepted input forms (base64 image or public HTTPS image URL). It also states the output shape, making the tool's function immediately clear and distinct from its siblings.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description clearly indicates when to use the tool: whenever a QR code needs decoding from either a base64 image or an HTTPS URL. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the usage context is unambiguous and the sibling generate_qr provides an obvious contrast by purpose.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
ship_verify and ship_verify_v2 are near-synonyms, and ship_bundle wraps ship_pack plus an audit while evidence_pack combines screenshot/PDF/HTML. The descriptions help, but an agent could easily pick the wrong granularity or version.
All tools use the forgekit_ prefix and snake_case, but verb placement is inconsistent: business_days_add/count place the noun first, evidence_pack has no verb, and the ship_* group mixes noun and verb senses. The set is readable but not uniformly patterned.
Fifteen tools is near the upper end of a reasonable utility-kit size, and most tools are individually useful. It feels slightly over-scoped because ship_verify_v2 and ship_bundle partially duplicate other capabilities rather than adding clearly new operations.
The web/media surface is broadly covered with screenshots, PDFs, QR encode/decode, OG previews, evidence packs, and agent-readiness audits. However, the set is an eclectic collection rather than one coherent workflow, and there are gaps such as no MCP-level polling for async jobs and no history/retrieval for evidence packs or ship bundles.