Skip to main content
Glama

Word Cloud Generator (word-cloud.net)

generate_wordcloud_image

Generate a word cloud and return it as a WebP image. Data is sent to word-cloud.net servers for processing only and is not logged or stored.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
boldNoUse bold weight
fontNoFont family. Built-in: Arial, Audiowide, Bangers, Black Ops One, Bungee, Caveat, Chewy, Comic Sans MS, Courier New, Creepster, Dancing Script, Fredoka One, Georgia, Great Vibes, Impact, Lobster, Luckiest Guy, MedievalSharp, Montserrat, Nosifer, Open Sans, Orbitron, Oswald, Pacifico, Passion One, Permanent Marker, Righteous, Roboto, Russo One, Satisfy, UnifrakturMaguntia. Or use any Google Font with googleFontsUrl.Impact
maskNoShape mask preset constraining where words are placednone
shapeNoCanvas shapelandscape
wordsYesArray of words with weights. Higher weight = larger text.
maskUrlNoURL to a custom mask image (PNG, JPEG, SVG). Black areas define where words are placed.
gradientNoBackground gradient. Mutually exclusive with backgroundColor.
rotationNoWord rotation modehorizontal-vertical
colorModeNoColor mode: 'palette' uses colorPalette colors, 'bw' is black & white, 'white' is all white textpalette
colorPaletteNoColor palette presetrainbow
customColorsNoCustom hex color values (e.g. ["#ff0000", "#00ff00"]). Overrides colorPalette when provided.
backgroundUrlNoURL to a background image (PNG, JPEG, SVG).
googleFontsUrlNoGoogle Fonts CSS URL for custom fonts (e.g. https://fonts.googleapis.com/css2?family=Lobster&display=swap)
backgroundColorNoSolid background hex color (e.g. #1a034f). Omit for transparent. Mutually exclusive with gradient and backgroundPreset.
backgroundPresetNoBuilt-in background image presetNone

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It reveals a significant trait: data is sent to third-party servers and is not logged or stored. This is useful privacy context, though it omits other behavioral details like network requirements or potential rate limits.

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 two sentences with no unnecessary words. It front-loads the purpose and then adds a critical privacy note, with every sentence earning its place.

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?

The tool is complex with 15 parameters and nested objects, but the schema descriptions are comprehensive. The description states the output type (WebP image) as expected. It lacks some details about how the image is returned, but the schema-rich context makes the description adequately complete.

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 the schema already provides detailed descriptions for all parameters. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what is already in the schema, so baseline score 3 is appropriate.

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 clear action ('Generate a word cloud') with a specific output format ('return it as a WebP image'), which distinguishes it from the sibling SVG tool. The explicit output type helps differentiate from generate_wordcloud and generate_wordcloud_svg.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus the sibling tools (generate_wordcloud, generate_wordcloud_svg). There is no mention of alternatives, exclusions, or context-specific use cases.

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.

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Each tool generates a word cloud but differs clearly by output format: URL, WebP image, or SVG image. The descriptions explicitly state the return type, so an agent can unambiguously select the appropriate tool for its needs.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tool names follow the same prefix 'generate_wordcloud' with an optional suffix denoting the output format ('_image', '_svg'). The base name indicates the action, and the suffix differentiates variants, forming a clear and predictable pattern.

Tool Count5/5

With exactly 3 tools, the set is minimal and well-scoped for a word cloud generation service. Each tool serves a distinct output format, and the count feels appropriate for the domain without redundancy or excessive overlap.

Completeness5/5

The tool surface covers the core functionality of generating a word cloud in three common output formats (embed URL, WebP, SVG). This satisfies typical use cases for the stated purpose, and there are no obvious gaps such as missing format options or lifecycle operations.

Resources