Skip to main content
Glama

Makes a QR code as scalable SVG for up to 17 bytes at level

agent_intel_highres_qr_code_generator
Read-only

Makes a QR code as scalable SVG (21x21 modules, version 1) for up to 17 bytes at level L, 14 at M, 11 at Q or 7 at H, with the mask chosen by the standard penalty rules. Returns the SVG and a base64 copy. Larger versions are not supported; longer text returns 400. Price: $0.002 in USDC per successful call, paid with x402 (Base, Solana or Arc); failed calls are not charged.

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": {
      "text": "<text>"
    },
    "name": "agent_intel_highres_qr_code_generator"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
ecNoError correction level: L, M, Q or H (default M)
textYesText to encode as UTF-8 bytes; the byte limit depends on the level
scaleNoPixels per module in the SVG, 1 to 20 (default 8)

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
ecNo
svgNo
maskNo
noteNo
sizeNo
sourceNo
versionNo
checkedAtNo
svgBase64No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint; the description adds the return shape (SVG plus base64 copy), failure semantics (400 on overflow), and commercial terms ($0.002 USDC per successful call via x402, failures not charged). Those pricing and charge-on-success details are decision-relevant and appear nowhere in the structured fields.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single dense sentence carries the capability, capacity table, and algorithm choice, followed by return format, failure mode, and price in a clean progression. Nothing is redundant and the core capability is front-loaded.

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 an output schema present, the description does not need to detail the return payload, and it still names both SVG and base64. For a paid, capacity-bounded generator it covers limits, failure behavior, and cost; only the scale parameter's visual effect is left unaddressed.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so a 3 is the floor, but the description earns more by quantifying the epsilon tradeoff per error-correction level (17/14/11/7 bytes for L/M/Q/H), which the schema only alludes to as 'the byte limit depends on the level'. The scale parameter and the mask-penalty behavior are not tied back to inputs, so it is not a 5.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and artifact ('Makes a QR code as scalable SVG') plus the exact format constraint (21x21 modules, version 1), which lets an agent distinguish this from any other tool in the sibling list without opening the schema.

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?

The description gives explicit when-not-to-use conditions: larger versions are unsupported, and text exceeding the per-level byte budget returns 400. It stops short of naming an alternative for larger payloads, but no sibling tool produces QR codes, so the routing gap is minor.

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.

Resources