OpenQR

create_static_qr

Save a static QR code to your library from structured fields: wifi, contact (vCard), email, SMS, WhatsApp, location, text, phone or URL. Static codes bake the content into the code itself — no short link, no scan analytics, not editable later. Render the returned payload with generate_qr. Requires an OpenQR API key.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "type": "<type>",
      "fields": "<fields>"
    },
    "name": "create_static_qr"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`type`	Yes	The payload type.
`label`	No	Optional label for your dashboard.
`theme`	No	A saved theme id or name to style the code with.
`fields`	Yes	Field names depend on type. url: url. text: text. email: email, subject?, body?. phone: phone. sms: phone, message?. whatsapp: phone (country code, digits only), message?. wifi: ssid, password?, encryption? (WPA\|WEP\|nopass), hidden? (boolean). geo: lat, lng. vcard: firstName?, lastName?, mobilePhone?, generalPhone?, personalEmail?, generalEmail?, organization?, title?, website?, street?, city?, postalCode?, country? (a name/phone/email is required; legacy aliases phone, email, org, url, address still accepted).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedNov 10, 2026

changedInput schema / properties / fields / description

Previous value: -"Field names depend on type. url: url. text: text. email: email, subject?, body?. phone: phone. sms: phone, message?. whatsapp: phone (country code, digits only), message?. wifi: ssid, password?, encryption? (WPA|WEP|nopass), hidden? (boolean). geo: lat, lng. vcard: firstName?, lastName?, phone?, email?, org?, title?, url?, address? (a name/phone/email is required)."New value: +"Field names depend on type. url: url. text: text. email: email, subject?, body?. phone: phone. sms: phone, message?. whatsapp: phone (country code, digits only), message?. wifi: ssid, password?, encryption? (WPA|WEP|nopass), hidden? (boolean). geo: lat, lng. vcard: firstName?, lastName?, mobilePhone?, generalPhone?, personalEmail?, generalEmail?, organization?, title?, website?, street?, city?, postalCode?, country? (a name/phone/email is required; legacy aliases phone, email, org, url, address still accepted)."

AddedSep 2, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses that the code is immutable after creation, that no short link or scan analytics exist, and that an OpenQR API key is required. It says nothing about the shape of the returned payload beyond calling it a 'payload', or about error behavior for invalid field combinations.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the action, followed by the key constraint and then the follow-up step. Nothing is padded and each clause carries information the 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 nested-object mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description supplies the critical behavioral facts (immutability, no analytics, auth requirement) and the render handoff. A brief word on what the returned payload contains would close the last gap.

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 nested fields object already enumerates per-type field names, so the description's type list ('wifi, contact (vCard), email...') mostly restates the enum. 'From structured fields' is the only added framing, and it does not explain semantics the schema lacks. Baseline 3 applies.

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?

Specific verb and resource ('Save a static QR code') plus the full set of supported payload types, and it draws the static-vs-dynamic line explicitly ('no short link, no scan analytics, not editable later'), which is what separates it from the create_dynamic_qr / bulk_create_dynamic_qr siblings.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

It establishes the selection context (use this when the content should be baked in permanently) and gives a concrete next step, 'Render the returned payload with generate_qr'. It also states the API-key prerequisite. It stops short of naming create_dynamic_qr as the alternative when editing or scan analytics are needed, leaving that inference to the reader.

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

All OpenQR tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.