Generate a QR code with the LifeStep QR API. Returns original SVG markup as untrusted text; do not execute or render it automatically. No resource is created or modified.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| data | Yes | Text or URL to encode, at most 2,000 Unicode characters and 8,000 UTF-8 bytes. Sent to the existing QR API. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds an important security-relevant behavioral detail beyond the annotations: the returned SVG markup must be treated as untrusted text and should not be executed or rendered automatically. It also states that no resource is created or modified, reinforcing the read-only, non-destructive annotation hints without contradicting them.
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 compact and front-loaded with the primary purpose, followed by the essential security warning and a side-effect clarification. Every sentence contributes meaningful information without redundancy or padding.
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 single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is sufficiently complete: it identifies the action, the API, the return type and trust level, and the absence of side effects. The agent has the necessary information to call the tool correctly and handle its output safely.
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?
The input schema already provides complete documentation for the single 'data' parameter, including type, length limits, and encoding constraints. The description itself adds no additional parameter-specific semantics, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate given the high schema coverage.
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 states a specific action ('Generate') and a specific resource ('a QR code') using the LifeStep QR API, and clarifies the return format as SVG markup. This makes the tool's purpose unmistakable and clearly distinct from the sibling tools, which inspect workbooks, look up domains, and validate email.
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 description does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it provide exclusions or conditions where another tool should be preferred. The usage context is only implied by the action of generating a QR code, with no explicit routing guidance or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.