Free styled QR codes, no key: URL, WiFi, contact, text, email. API key adds saved codes + analytics.
Scored across 3 tools
Each tool targets a clearly distinct operation: generation, retrieval of scan analytics, and listing saved codes. There is no meaningful overlap, and an agent can easily select the right tool.
All three names follow a consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern (generate_qr_code, get_analytics, list_qr_codes). Conventions are predictable and readable.
Three tools is on the lean side but reasonable for a focused QR code service. It covers the primary generate/list/analytics flows without bloat, though a slightly larger surface would be natural.
Core flows (generate, list, analytics) exist, but lifecycle operations like delete, update/edit, and fetching a single QR code's details are missing. These gaps will limit agents managing saved codes over time.
Generate a QR code image. Use this whenever a user asks to create, make, or generate a QR code for a URL, website, WiFi network, contact card, email, or text. Returns a hosted image URL and a base64 data URL for inline display. Colour, size, dot and corner styling, frames and captions are free on every plan and with no key at all — offer them freely. When authenticated, the QR code is saved to the user's account and svg/pdf output becomes available.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | No | Display name when saving via the authenticated API. If omitted, a name is derived from type and content. | |
| size | No | Output image size in pixels (64–1024). Defaults to 256. | |
| type | Yes | QR code type. Use 'url' for web links, 'wifi' for network credentials (format: WIFI:T:WPA;S:<ssid>;P:<password>;;), 'contact' for vCard data, 'text' for arbitrary strings, 'email' for email addresses. Every type works without a key. | |
| format | No | Output format, returned as a data URL of that type. Defaults to 'png'. svg and pdf REQUIRE an API key: vector and PDF are the most expensive render path, so they sit behind a per-key rate limit rather than a per-IP one. This is a cost control, not a plan feature — both are free in the dashboard and in the browser generator on every plan. | |
| caption | No | Short text rendered under the code, e.g. 'Scan for the menu'. Forces a frame to be drawn, because the text needs a band to sit on. Free on every plan. | |
| content | Yes | The data to encode. Examples: 'https://example.com' for url, 'WIFI:T:WPA;S:MyNetwork;P:secret;;' for wifi, plain text for text type. | |
| dotStyle | No | Shape of the QR modules. Free on every plan, keyless sessions included. | |
| darkColor | No | Hex color for dark QR modules, e.g. '#1a1a1a'. Defaults to '#000000'. | |
| frameStyle | No | Draw a frame around the code. 'square' means no frame. Free on every plan. | |
| lightColor | No | Hex color for the background, e.g. '#ffffff'. Defaults to '#FFFFFF'. | |
| captionFont | No | Typeface for the caption. Defaults to 'inter' (bold sans). 'pacifico' and 'dancing-script' are scripts, 'permanent-marker' is handwritten, 'playfair-display' and 'roboto-slab' are serifs. Ignored without a caption. | |
| cornerStyle | No | Shape of the three large corner squares. Free on every plan. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden and does it well: it states the return shape (hosted image URL + base64 data URL), that authentication causes the code to be saved to the user's account, that svg/pdf require a key and sit behind a per-key rate limit, and which features are free/unauthenticated. Auth requirements, side effects, and rate limiting are all surfaced.
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 key facts (what it does, when to use it, what it returns, auth gating) are front-loaded in the first three sentences. The later pricing-marketing sentence ('offer them freely') is somewhat promotional and bleeds into territory already covered by the schema descriptions.
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 12-parameter mutation-like tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description supplies the missing pieces: return values, authentication behavior, and feature gating. It is nearly complete, with only minor redundancy against the 100%-covered schema rather than a substantive gap.
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 description coverage is 100%, so every parameter's meaning, defaults, ranges and enums are already documented in the schema — including the same 'free on every plan' notes the description repeats. The description adds no per-parameter detail (e.g. format-specific constraints) beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.
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 opens with a specific verb+resource ('Generate a QR code image') and enumerates the supported input kinds (URL, WiFi, contact, email, text). This clearly separates it from the read-only siblings get_analytics and list_qr_codes without needing their schemas.
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?
It gives an explicit trigger: 'Use this whenever a user asks to create, make, or generate a QR code for...'. That is strong when-to-use coverage, but it never names the sibling tools or states exclusions (e.g. use list_qr_codes to find an existing code), so it falls short of a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Get scan analytics for the authenticated user's QR codes. Optionally filter to a specific QR code by ID. Requires an authenticated API key (Developer plan).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| qrCodeId | No | Filter analytics to a specific QR code ID. Omit for account-wide totals. | |
| timeRange | No | Time range for analytics data. Defaults to '30d'. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden but does disclose meaningful behavioral context: it requires an authenticated API key and is restricted to the Developer plan. It does not describe return format, pagination, rate limits, or explicitly confirm read-only safety, so it is adequate but not thorough.
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?
Three short sentences with zero filler. The core purpose is front-loaded, followed by filtering and authentication constraints, so the most important information is presented first.
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 read-only analytics tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers purpose, optional filtering, and authentication requirements. However, it does not describe what analytics data is returned, which is a notable gap when no output schema exists.
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 description coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already well documented. The description's mention of optionally filtering by QR code ID adds no new semantic detail beyond what the schema provides, making the baseline score of 3 appropriate.
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?
States a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('scan analytics for the authenticated user's QR codes'), which is clearly distinct from the sibling tools that generate or list QR codes. The optional filtering scope is also stated. An agent can immediately tell what the tool does.
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 purpose strongly implies when to use it (to retrieve analytics), and the description notes an authentication prerequisite. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like list_qr_codes or explain when not to use it, so usage guidance remains implied rather than explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
List QR codes saved to the authenticated user's account. Supports pagination and filtering by type. Requires an authenticated API key (Developer plan).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page | No | Page number for pagination. Defaults to 1. | |
| type | No | Filter by QR code type. | |
| limit | No | Number of QR codes per page (1–100). Defaults to 20. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the authentication and plan requirement, which an agent must know before calling, but says nothing about ordering, default result set, rate limits, or what happens on an empty account.
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?
Three tight sentences with no filler: purpose first, capabilities second, prerequisite third. Nothing is redundant and the most important information is front-loaded.
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 read-only listing tool with three optional parameters, full schema coverage, and no output schema, the description covers purpose, filtering, pagination, and access requirements. Only minor gaps remain around result ordering and the shape of the returned list.
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 description coverage is 100%, so page, limit, and type are already fully documented with ranges, defaults, and an enum. The description only restates that pagination and type filtering exist, adding no syntax or format detail beyond 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 names a specific verb and resource ('List QR codes') and scopes it to 'the authenticated user's account,' so the agent knows exactly what is returned. It stops short of explicitly contrasting itself with siblings like generate_qr_code or get_analytics, though the distinction is fairly obvious from the read-only listing framing.
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?
Usage is implied rather than stated: the agent can infer this is the retrieval path for QR codes and that pagination/type filtering are available. It states a prerequisite (authenticated API key on the Developer plan), which is genuinely useful, but offers no explicit when-to-use-this-vs-alternatives guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
generate_qr_code1 field changedInput schema / properties / captionFontAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Typeface for the caption. Defaults to 'inter' (bold sans). 'pacifico' and 'dancing-script' are scripts, 'permanent-marker' is handwritten, 'playfair-display' and 'roboto-slab' are serifs. Ignored without a caption.",
+ "enum": [
+ "inter",
+ "oswald",
+ "bebas-neue",
+ "fredoka",
+ "playfair-display",
+ "roboto-slab",
+ "pacifico",
+ "dancing-script",
+ "permanent-marker",
+ "space-mono"
+ ],
+ "type": "string"
+}generate_qr_code6 fields changedInput schema / properties / captionAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Short text rendered under the code, e.g. 'Scan for the menu'. Forces a frame to be drawn, because the text needs a band to sit on. Free on every plan.",
+ "maxLength": 60,
+ "type": "string"
+}Input schema / properties / cornerStyleAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Shape of the three large corner squares. Free on every plan.",
+ "enum": [
+ "square",
+ "dot",
+ "extra-rounded"
+ ],
+ "type": "string"
+}Input schema / properties / dotStyleAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Shape of the QR modules. Free on every plan, keyless sessions included.",
+ "enum": [
+ "square",
+ "dots",
+ "rounded",
+ "extra-rounded",
+ "classy",
+ "classy-rounded"
+ ],
+ "type": "string"
+}Input schema / properties / formatAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Output format, returned as a data URL of that type. Defaults to 'png'. svg and pdf REQUIRE an API key: vector and PDF are the most expensive render path, so they sit behind a per-key rate limit rather than a per-IP one. This is a cost control, not a plan feature — both are free in the dashboard and in the browser generator on every plan.",
+ "enum": [
+ "png",
+ "svg",
+ "pdf"
+ ],
+ "type": "string"
+}Input schema / properties / frameStyleAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Draw a frame around the code. 'square' means no frame. Free on every plan.",
+ "enum": [
+ "square",
+ "rounded",
+ "circle",
+ "dashed"
+ ],
+ "type": "string"
+}Input schema / properties / type / descriptionPrevious value: -"QR code type. Use 'url' for web links, 'wifi' for network credentials (format: WIFI:T:WPA;S:<ssid>;P:<password>;;), 'contact' for vCard data, 'text' for arbitrary strings, 'email' for email addresses. Note: 'email' requires a Bearer token — it cannot be used with the public (unauthenticated) MCP session."New value: +"QR code type. Use 'url' for web links, 'wifi' for network credentials (format: WIFI:T:WPA;S:<ssid>;P:<password>;;), 'contact' for vCard data, 'text' for arbitrary strings, 'email' for email addresses. Every type works without a key."get_analyticslist_qr_codesgenerate_qr_codeFree styled QR code generator API. Create QR codes with custom colors, logos, and frame templates. Supports URL, WiFi, Email, Phone, SMS. No API keys required.
Generate static QR codes (URL, WiFi, vCard, pixel art) and decode QR images. Codes never expire.
Generate QR codes and create, edit and track dynamic (editable) QR codes with scan analytics, over a hosted MCP server plus a free REST API. Free, no watermark, no expiry. Every tool takes a free API key from https://openqr.uk/api.
Short links you can re-point after printing the QR, with click analytics. Free QR, no key.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
