Skip to main content
Glama

api2pdf

by io.usefulapi

Generate barcode / QR code (Zebra)

api2pdf_generate_barcode
Destructive

Generate a barcode or QR code image. format is the symbology (e.g. 'QRCode', 'Code128', 'PDF417', 'DataMatrix') and value is the string to encode. Returns a { FileUrl } (valid ~24h) by default, or base64 with output_binary:true. BILLED. Api2Pdf API: GET /zebra.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
valueYesThe string to encode in the barcode/QR code.
widthNoImage width in pixels.
formatYesBarcode/QR symbology, e.g. 'QRCode', 'Code128', 'PDF417', 'DataMatrix'.
heightNoImage height in pixels.
showlabelNoIf true, render the encoded value as a human-readable label under the barcode.
output_binaryNoIf true, return the raw image bytes as base64 instead of a FileUrl. Default false.

Schema Changelog

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

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the annotations: it warns 'BILLED', explains the default FileUrl return with ~24h validity, and documents the output_binary switch to base64. It does not directly contradict the destructiveHint annotation, though that annotation seems surprising for a generation tool and is not clarified.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is three compact sentences with no filler: purpose first, parameter clarification second, and response/billing context last. Every sentence contributes operational information an agent needs.

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?

For a tool with no output schema, the description covers the return type, FileUrl validity, billing implication, and the API endpoint, while the schema covers individual parameters. It is sufficient for correct invocation, though it does not address potential error or size constraints.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Input schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by clarifying that `format` is the symbology, `value` is the encoded string, and by specifying exactly what output_binary:true does (returns base64 instead of FileUrl).

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Generate a barcode or QR code image.' It also names concrete symbologies such as QRCode, Code128, PDF417, and DataMatrix, which clearly distinguishes it from the sibling PDF/image conversion tools.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description implies its use case through the purpose statement and unique tool name, but it does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus alternatives or mention any exclusions. Sibling differentiation is only incidental because no other sibling generates barcodes.

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

All api2pdf toolsInspect
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

A4.3/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Each tool targets a distinct operation: conversions, PDF manipulations, file deletion, and account/service info are clearly separated. Even the three HTML-to-PDF tools are distinguished by source type or rendering engine.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tools follow a consistent api2pdf_ prefix with snake_case verb-based names such as add_password, merge_pdfs, and url_to_pdf. The pattern is predictable and makes it easy to infer what each tool does.

Tool Count4/5

Sixteen tools is slightly above the typical 3-15 range, but the count is justified by the breadth of Api2Pdf's functionality spanning creation, manipulation, conversion, deletion, and account management.

Completeness5/5

The surface covers the full PDF lifecycle: generate from multiple sources, manipulate via merge/extract/compress/password, convert to markdown, delete files, plus billing and status checks. No obvious missing operations for the documented purpose.

Resources