webbersites-x402-data-api

post_logo_generate

Logo generator: POST a company name (+ optional tagline), an icon (search query or exact Font Awesome name), 1-3 brand colors (hex or CSS names), a mark shape (squircle/rounded/circle/square/transparent) and a layout — icon above/below the name (square logo) or beside it (wide lockup) — and get a finished logo as SVG + PNG. Text set in one of six curated open-license fonts (named or randomly rotated), rendered as vector paths. ($0.02 per call, paid via x402)

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`bg`	No	Canvas background color (default transparent)
`fg`	No	Glyph color override (default white on filled shapes)
`font`	No	montserrat, playfair, space-grotesk, bebas, poppins, dm-serif — omit for random
`icon`	No	Exact Font Awesome icon name (skips search)
`name`	Yes	Company/product wordmark text (required, max 40 chars)
`query`	No	Icon search text — best Font Awesome match becomes the mark
`shape`	No	Mark background: squircle (default), rounded, circle, square, transparent
`style`	No	Icon style: solid (default), regular, or brands
`colors`	No	1-3 colors, hex or CSS names: [0] brand (mark bg, or glyph if transparent), [1] gradient partner, [2] text color (default: brand)
`layout`	No	Mark position vs text: bottom (mark above name, square — default), top (name above mark, square), right or left (side-by-side wide lockup)
`tagline`	No	Optional tagline under the name (max 60 chars)

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`svg`	No
`font`	No
`icon`	No
`name`	No
`width`	No
`height`	No
`png_base64`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

First observedJul 9, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Discloses key behaviors beyond annotations: output is SVG+PNG, uses six curated fonts rendered as vector paths, costs $0.02 per call via x402. Annotations indicate non-read-only and non-destructive nature; description aligns and adds pricing and output format.

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?

Single sentence effectively front-loads purpose and enumerates key inputs, but could be more structured for easier parsing. No wasted words, but the density may reduce readability.

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?

Covers all major aspects (inputs, outputs, pricing, font handling) for a tool with 11 parameters and an output schema. Minor missing details (e.g., response format beyond SVG/PNG) are compensated by the output schema's existence.

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

Parameters5/5

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

Adds substantial meaning beyond schema descriptions: explains relationship between icon, query, and style; defines layout types (square vs lockup); notes font randomization option; clarifies color roles. All parameters benefit from context that schema alone doesn't provide.

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?

The description clearly states the tool generates a logo from a company name, icon, colors, shape, and layout, producing SVG+PNG. It uses a specific verb ('POST') and resource ('logo'), and distinguishes from sibling tools like 'post_icon_generate' by detailing the full logo generation process.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'post_icon_generate' or 'post_brand_kit'. The description focuses on what it does but doesn't provide context for selection or exclusions.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All webbersites-x402-data-api tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Disambiguation4/5

Most tools have distinct purposes, but the SEO-related tools (head_check, full_audit, site_audit, etc.) overlap in scope, potentially causing confusion despite clear descriptions.

Naming Consistency5/5

Tool names consistently follow a get_/post_/delete_ verb pattern with descriptive noun phrases (e.g., get_seo_head_check, post_store_collection), with no mixing of naming conventions.

Tool Count2/5

With 46 tools covering a wide breadth of domains (SEO, accessibility, music, crypto, linting, etc.), the count is excessive for a single server, feeling unfocused and heavy.

Completeness4/5

The tool set covers most core operations for each sub-domain, but minor gaps exist (e.g., missing update for datastore, limited music operations).

post_logo_generate

Input Schema

Output Schema

Schema Changelog

TDQS

Glama MCP Gateway

TDQS

Resources