Preview and download an owned QR as PNG, or eligible SVG. Returns a short-lived download URL; do not expose private connection tokens. Existing anonymous PNG URLs remain supported.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| format | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / $schemaAdded value: +"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"Input schema / properties / format / enumAdded value: +[
+ "png",
+ "svg"
+]Input schema / properties / id / formatAdded value: +"uuid"Input schema / properties / id / patternAdded value: +"^([0-9a-fA-F]{8}-[0-9a-fA-F]{4}-[1-8][0-9a-fA-F]{3}-[89abAB][0-9a-fA-F]{3}-[0-9a-fA-F]{12}|00000000-0000-0000-0000-000000000000|ffffffff-ffff-ffff-ffff-ffffffffffff)$"Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare this a read-only, idempotent, non-destructive operation, so the safety bar is met by structured data. The description still adds real value beyond them: a short-lived download URL, a security warning not to expose private connection tokens, and backward compatibility for anonymous PNG URLs.
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?
Three short sentences, front-loaded with the capability before the security caveat. Nothing is wasted, though 'eligible SVG' is left unexplained and slightly undercuts the clarity of an otherwise tight statement.
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?
There is no output schema, and the description covers the essential return value (a short-lived download URL) plus a security caveat and legacy behavior. It is nearly complete for a two-parameter read tool, with only the conditions for SVG eligibility and the relationship to sibling retrieval tools left unspecified.
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 0%, so the description must compensate. It partially does: 'owned QR' implies the id must belong to the caller (an authorization constraint the schema lacks), and 'eligible SVG' hints that SVG support is conditional in a way the enum alone does not convey. Neither parameter is explained directly, so the gap is only partly filled.
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?
States a specific verb+resource combination (render/preview a QR) plus the output formats (PNG or eligible SVG), which is concrete. However, it does not distinguish itself from the close sibling get_qr_code, so an agent still has to guess which retrieval tool to use.
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 phrase 'Preview and download' implies usage, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not guidance, and no reference to the obvious alternatives get_qr_code or list_qr_codes. The only contextual cue is a legacy note about anonymous PNG URLs, which is not routing guidance.
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.