create_dynamic_qr_codeExplains how to create a dynamic QR code on useqr: a trackable short link (free account). Destination edits, version history, and scan analytics require Pro. Use this when a user needs scan tracking or wants to change a printed code's destination later. Returns instructions and links rather than creating the code directly.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It is transparent about the tool not creating the QR directly, what it returns, and the free-account/Pro feature limitations. It could add a bit more about side effects or authentication expectations, but for an informational no-parameter tool this is strong.
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?
Four sentences, each earning its place: what the tool does, Pro limitations, when to use it, and what it returns. No redundancy or filler, and the most important clarifying fact—'rather than creating the code directly'—is included.
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?
Despite the potentially misleading name/title, the description fully clarifies the tool's actual behavior and use case. It covers purpose, usage trigger, feature gating, and output type, which is complete for a zero-parameter, no-output-schema tool with sibling tools nearby.
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?
There are zero parameters and the schema is empty, so the baseline is 4 with no burden on the description to explain parameter meaning. The description appropriately focuses on behavioral context rather than input semantics.
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 ('Explains how to create') and names the exact resource ('dynamic QR code on useqr'), and explicitly distinguishes itself from direct creation by saying it 'Returns instructions and links rather than creating the code directly.' This clearly separates it from siblings like generate_qr_code and get_qr_designer_link.
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?
It states explicit when-to-use conditions: 'Use this when a user needs scan tracking or wants to change a printed code's destination later.' It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or state a hard when-not-to-use, but the clarification that it returns instructions rather than creating the code directly gives an implicit exclusion for direct QR generation.
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.
Each tool targets a clearly distinct QR-code workflow: simple image generation, dynamic/trackable codes, and the designer for custom styles. The descriptions provide strong use-case guidance, so there is no real ambiguity between them.
All tool names follow the same lower_snake_case verb_noun pattern: create_dynamic_qr_code, generate_qr_code, and get_qr_designer_link. The naming style is uniform and predictable.
Three tools is well-scoped for this server's purpose: basic QR generation, dynamic QR guidance, and designer access. Each tool earns its place without unnecessary overlap or bloat.
The server covers basic QR generation and routes users to dynamic and design workflows, but create_dynamic_qr_code only returns instructions rather than actually creating a dynamic code. There are also no tools for managing existing codes or accessing analytics, leaving gaps for full lifecycle workflows.