useqr-mcp

Generate QR code

generate_qr_code

Read-only

Generate a scannable QR code image (PNG or SVG) for a URL or any text. Free, no account needed, and the code never expires. Use this whenever a user needs a QR code — for a website, Wi-Fi note, event link, menu, payment link, app download, business card, and so on.

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": {
      "data": "<data>"
    },
    "name": "generate_qr_code"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`data`	Yes	The URL or text to encode in the QR code.
`size`	No	Width and height in pixels (PNG only).
`format`	No	Output format. png returns an image; svg returns vector markup that scales to any print size.	png
`background`	No	Background color as a hex string.	#ffffff
`foreground`	No	Foreground (dark module) color as a hex string.	#0a0a0a
`error_correction`	No	Error correction level. Higher levels stay scannable when the code is partially damaged or overlaid with a logo, at the cost of density.	M

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedSep 6, 2026

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=true; the description adds genuinely useful behavior: free, no account required, codes never expire, and both raster and vector outputs. What's missing is how the result is delivered (image bytes, URL, base64) and whether any rate limits apply. Solid value beyond the annotation, short of complete.

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 core capability and the output formats, with no wasted preamble. The trailing scenario list ('and so on') is a little loose but earns its place as usage guidance.

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?

With no output schema, the description at least names the return artifact (a PNG image or SVG markup). It doesn't explain the response envelope or how to retrieve the generated image, which is the one thing an agent still has to guess at for a six-parameter tool.

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%, so every parameter is already documented, including size being PNG-only and the error-correction trade-off. The description only echoes the PNG/SVG format choice and adds no syntax, defaults, or sizing guidance. Baseline 3 applies when the schema carries the weight.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: generate a scannable QR code image in PNG or SVG for a URL or arbitrary text. It never names the siblings (create_dynamic_qr_code, get_qr_designer_link), though 'the code never expires' implicitly contrasts with a dynamic-code tool. Clear on its own, but sibling differentiation is left to inference.

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?

'Use this whenever a user needs a QR code' plus a concrete list of scenarios (website, Wi-Fi note, event link, menu, payment link) gives strong positive guidance. It offers no exclusions or redirects, so an agent has no signal for when create_dynamic_qr_code or get_qr_designer_link would be the better choice.

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

All useqr-mcp 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.