Release the branded subdomain. Codes stay live on the plain short link; only the {name}.oqr.to form stops resolving. The name becomes claimable by someone else. Requires an OpenQR API key.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It clearly states the destructive effect (subdomain stops resolving), the non-destructive effect on existing codes (stay live), and the change of ownership (name becomes claimable). It does not mention idempotency or error behavior (e.g., what if subdomain already released), but for a tool with zero parameters, this is acceptable.
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 three sentences long, each sentence adds essential information: action, effect on existing codes, ownership implication. No filler, no repetition. 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?
Given the tool has no parameters, no output schema, and annotations are absent, this description is sufficient. It tells the agent what the tool does, what the side effects are, and what is needed. The agent can confidently select and invoke this tool without ambiguity.
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 has no parameters, so there is nothing to document. Baseline is 4, but since there are no parameters, no additional value can be added. The description is clear about what is being released, which compensates slightly. Score 3 because there is no parameter documentation needed but the description is still adequate.
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 clearly states the action ('Release the branded subdomain'), specifies the resource (subdomain), and distinguishes from siblings by noting that other tools like 'set_subdomain' or 'get_subdomain' exist. It precisely describes the effect: codes stay live on the plain short link, only the branded form stops resolving.
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 explicitly states when to use: when you want to release a branded subdomain. It also clarifies what happens—codes remain live on the plain link, the name becomes claimable—and notes the requirement of an OpenQR API key. No sibling tool does exactly this; 'set_subdomain' would be for assigning one. The description is complete guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool targets a distinct operation on a specific resource: static vs dynamic QR creation, single vs bulk, subdomain management, folder/theme CRUD, scan statistics. No two tools have overlapping purposes; even similar verbs like create_dynamic_qr and bulk_create_dynamic_qr are clearly differentiated by cardinality.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern using snake_case (e.g., create_dynamic_qr, get_scans, set_subdomain). Compound verbs like bulk_create are standard. No mixing of styles or irregular names.
17 tools is well-scoped for a QR code management server. It covers creation (static, dynamic, bulk), update, delete, retrieval, listing, scan stats, subdomain management, folders, and themes—each tool serves a clear purpose without bloat.
The toolset provides full CRUD for dynamic QR codes and subdomain management, plus scan statistics, folder and theme management. Minor gaps: missing update operations for folders and themes, and no search/filter tool for codes. These are acceptable omissions given the API's typical usage.