Look up a single QR code by its internal ID or short code. Returns a pre-formatted markdown table with fields: Title, ID, Short Code, Short URL, Destination, Status, Created, QR Code Link. Display the table exactly as received — do not reformat or summarise. Requires authentication.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| qr_code_id | No | Internal UUID from create_qr_code or list_qr_codes | |
| short_code | No | Short code from the redirect URL (e.g. "abc123") |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description carries the full transparency burden. It discloses the pre-formatted markdown table with exact fields, instructs to display it verbatim, and notes the authentication requirement. It does not cover error handling or rate limits, but for a read-only lookup the core behavior is well conveyed.
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?
The description is composed of four short, purposeful sentences: purpose, output format, display instruction, and authentication. There is no filler; the field list is necessary because there is no output schema.
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?
For a simple lookup tool with two optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers the operation, output format, field names, and auth. The only gaps are the ambiguity around neither parameter being required while the description implies at least one is needed, and no mention of not-found behavior. These are minor for the tool's simplicity.
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 100%, providing descriptions for both parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful semantics by clarifying that qr_code_id and short_code are alternative lookup keys ('by its internal ID or short code'), a relationship not explicit in the schema.
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?
The description uses a specific verb ('Look up') and clearly identifies the resource ('a single QR code') and the lookup keys (internal ID or short code). It distinguishes itself from list_qr_codes by emphasizing 'single' and from get_qr_scans by focusing on code details rather than scan statistics.
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 'a single QR code' implies this tool is for individual lookups, and the return description indicates code details. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives like list_qr_codes for multiple codes or get_qr_scans for analytics, leaving usage guidance implied rather than directly stated.
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.