Skip to main content
Glama

Get QR designer link

get_qr_designer_link
Read-only

Get a link to the free useqr design studio, optionally prefilled with a URL. The designer lets a user style dots, corners, and colors, embed a logo, and export the QR code as PNG, SVG, JPEG, WebP, or PDF. Share this link when a user wants a custom-designed or print-ready QR code.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "get_qr_designer_link"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
urlNoOptional http(s) URL to prefill in the designer so the QR code is ready immediately.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With readOnlyHint already declaring a safe read, the description adds real context: the result is a handoff link to a free external studio, not a generated image, and the studio's capabilities (styling, logo, export formats) explain what the user will get. It does not say whether the link expires or requires an account, which keeps it below 5.

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?

Three front-loaded sentences; the action is stated first and the follow-on detail supports the decision of when to share the link. The export-format enumeration (PNG, SVG, JPEG, WebP, PDF) is slightly more than an agent needs but is defensible as user-facing rationale.

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 zero-required-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers what is returned (a link), what it is for, and when to hand it over. Only link lifetime/validity is unaddressed.

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?

The single parameter is fully documented in the schema at 100% coverage, and the description only restates that the URL is optional and prefillable. Baseline 3 applies since the schema does the substantive work.

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: returns a link to the useqr design studio, optionally prefilled with a URL. That makes it clearly not a QR-generation tool like generate_qr_code or create_dynamic_qr_code, though those siblings are never named explicitly.

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?

"Share this link when a user wants a custom-designed or print-ready QR code" gives a concrete selection condition. There is no explicit when-not guidance or named alternative telling the agent to use generate_qr_code instead when the user just wants a plain QR code.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.