List your dynamic (editable) QR codes — id, short URL, destination, label and status. Requires an OpenQR API key.
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "list_dynamic_qr"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Max codes to return, 1–500 (default 200). |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It mentions the API key requirement, which is useful, but does not disclose pagination behavior, rate limits, or whether the listing is ordered. The 'default 200' hint is in the schema, not the description, so the description adds only the auth context.
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 a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the purpose and includes the key API key requirement. No wasted words, and every part earns its place.
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 a simple tool with one optional parameter, no output schema, and no nested objects, the description covers the essential purpose and the auth requirement. It could mention whether sorting/ordering applies, but for this complexity level, it is quite complete.
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 coverage is 100% for the single parameter 'limit', and the description does not repeat the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 verb 'list' and the resource 'dynamic QR codes', and it enumerates the fields returned (id, short URL, destination, label, status), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'get_dynamic_qr' (single item) or 'bulk_create_dynamic_qr' (creation).
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 listing (when you need an overview of codes) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs. alternatives like 'get_dynamic_qr' for a single code or 'search' tools. No exclusions or alternative recommendations are provided beyond the implicit sibling list.
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.