Skip to main content
Glama

Make a QR code

make_qr
Read-only

Turn a link or short text into a QR code a person can print, stick on paper and scan with a phone. Returns the QR as an image (PNG block) plus SVG and PNG links. Nothing is stored. Works with any language (UTF-8).

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": "make_qr"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
textYesLink or short text

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Added

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Adds real behavioral facts beyond the annotations: nothing is persisted (reinforcing readOnlyHint), the response shape is an inline PNG block plus SVG and PNG links, and it handles any UTF-8 language. It does not state size or resolution limits despite the 1000-character cap on input.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then side effects, then return format. No filler and no restatement of the tool name.

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 one-parameter, non-destructive generator with no output schema, the description covers purpose, side effects, and return shape adequately. The mechanics of the 'PNG block' (whether it is inline binary or base64) are slightly ambiguous for an agent consuming the result.

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% and the single parameter text is already described as 'Link or short text', which the description repeats nearly verbatim. The only added meaning is the UTF-8/any-language note; the 1000-character limit and practical QR capacity limits are not discussed. Baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Turn a link or short text into a QR code') and bounds the input domain to links and short text. The closest sibling, make_printable, is not named, so the agent must infer the distinction from the word 'QR' alone.

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?

Gives a concrete usage scenario ('a person can print, stick on paper and scan with a phone'), which tells the agent when this tool fits. It offers no explicit when-not guidance or routing to make_printable for non-QR printable output.

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.