Skip to main content
Glama

QRStuff MCP Server

Get QR code history

get_qrcode_history
Read-onlyIdempotent

Use this when the user asks what changed on a QR code, when it was edited or deleted, or who changed it. Returns the audit log with actions and dates. Read-only.

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": {
      "idqrcode": "<idqrcode>"
    },
    "name": "get_qrcode_history"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
actionNoFilter by audit action (e.g. qrcode_update, qrcode_create).
cursorNoCursor for next/previous page.
idqrcodeYesQR code ID.
per_pageNoItems per page (max 100).

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
entriesNo
per_pageNo
next_cursorNo
prev_cursorNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the trailing 'Read-only' sentence mostly repeats structured data. The one added detail is the shape of the return ('audit log with actions and dates'), but pagination behavior and filtering semantics are left to the schema.

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 short sentences that front-load the trigger condition, with no structural waste. The final 'Read-only' clause is slightly redundant with annotations but costs little.

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 a rich annotation set, a fully described 4-parameter schema, and an output schema, the description only needs to convey purpose and trigger — both are present. It is complete enough for an agent to call correctly without further prose.

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 every parameter has a description (action filter, cursor, per_page max 100), so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond that, making baseline 3 appropriate.

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+resource: returns the audit log (actions and dates) for a QR code, which clearly separates it from analytics siblings like get_qrcode_scans or get_qr_code_by_id. It does not explicitly name those siblings, so it stops short of the top score.

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 concrete trigger conditions: 'when the user asks what changed on a QR code, when it was edited or deleted, or who changed it.' This is a clear usage context, but no exclusions or explicit alternative tools are named.

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