Generate a static QR code from any text/URL. Returns a PNG image (or SVG markup). Requires an OpenQR API key.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| data | Yes | The content to encode (URL or text). | |
| size | No | Pixel size, 96–2048 (default 512). | |
| theme | No | A saved theme id or name. Applies the theme's colours; full styling applies to dynamic codes. | |
| format | No | Output format (default png). |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Input schema / properties / size / descriptionPrevious value: -"Pixel size, 64–2048 (default 512)."New value: +"Pixel size, 96–2048 (default 512)."Input schema / properties / theme / descriptionPrevious value: -"A saved theme id or name. Applies the theme's colours (SVG); full styling applies to dynamic codes."New value: +"A saved theme id or name. Applies the theme's colours; full styling applies to dynamic codes."Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses the API key requirement and output format, but does not mention other important behaviors such as the non-editable nature of static codes (permanence) or any rate limits/error conditions. This is a modest but incomplete disclosure.
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?
Two concise sentences with the primary purpose front-loaded. Every word earns its place, no fluff.
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?
For a 4-parameter tool with full schema coverage, the description is quite complete. It covers the key functional distinction (static vs dynamic), output format, and authentication. It does not provide an exhaustive list of edge cases, but that is acceptable for a simple QR generator. Slight lack of explicit guidance on choosing static over dynamic keeps it from a 5.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what the schema already provides; it merely echoes 'text/URL' which matches the data parameter. No added value in describing parameters.
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 'Generate a static QR code from any text/URL' with a specific verb and resource. It also specifies the return type (PNG image or SVG markup) and distinguishes itself from sibling dynamic QR tools by using the word 'static'.
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 implies usage for static QR codes, contrasting with dynamic tools like create_dynamic_qr. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools. The API key requirement is a clear prerequisite.
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.