Word Cloud Generator (word-cloud.net)

generate_wordcloud_svg

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

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`bold`	No	Use bold weight
`font`	No	Font 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
`mask`	No	Shape mask preset constraining where words are placed	none
`shape`	No	Canvas shape	landscape
`words`	Yes	Array of words with weights. Higher weight = larger text.
`maskUrl`	No	URL to a custom mask image (PNG, JPEG, SVG). Black areas define where words are placed.
`gradient`	No	Background gradient. Mutually exclusive with backgroundColor.
`rotation`	No	Word rotation mode	horizontal-vertical
`colorMode`	No	Color mode: 'palette' uses colorPalette colors, 'bw' is black & white, 'white' is all white text	palette
`colorPalette`	No	Color palette preset	rainbow
`customColors`	No	Custom hex color values (e.g. ["#ff0000", "#00ff00"]). Overrides colorPalette when provided.
`backgroundUrl`	No	URL to a background image (PNG, JPEG, SVG).
`googleFontsUrl`	No	Google Fonts CSS URL for custom fonts (e.g. https://fonts.googleapis.com/css2?family=Lobster&display=swap)
`backgroundColor`	No	Solid background hex color (e.g. #1a034f). Omit for transparent. Mutually exclusive with gradient and backgroundPreset.
`backgroundPreset`	No	Built-in background image preset	None

TDQS

B3.2/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

The description discloses a meaningful behavioral trait: data is sent to word-cloud.net and not logged or stored. However, with no annotations, it doesn't cover other behavioral aspects such as error handling, rate limits, or output size constraints.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and a relevant privacy note. Every sentence earns its place with no fluff.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With 15 parameters, nested objects, and no output schema, the description is too minimal. It doesn't clarify whether the SVG is returned as a raw string, file, or URL, and it lacks usage context relative to sibling tools.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already provides, but it doesn't need to compensate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states it generates a word cloud and returns it as an SVG image, with a specific verb and output type. It doesn't explicitly reference sibling tools, so differentiation is mostly by the 'SVG' wording rather than an explicit comparison.

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 generate_wordcloud or generate_wordcloud_image. There are no prerequisites, alternative recommendations, or exclusion criteria.

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

All Word Cloud Generator (word-cloud.net) 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

A3.8/5.0

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

Need Help?