Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
labelixa-mcp

labelixa-mcp

Official
by Labelixa
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Remote

barcode_generate

Generate standalone barcodes as SVG or PNG, including Code128, EAN-13, UPC, QR Code, Data Matrix, and PDF417, by supplying the barcode type and data to encode.

Instructions

Generate a standalone barcode (SVG text or PNG image). Supported types include code128, code39, ean13, upca, upce, itf14, msi, qrcode, datamatrix, pdf417.

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>",
      "data": "<data>"
    },
    "name": "barcode_generate"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
dataYesData to encode
typeYesBarcode type, e.g. code128
formatNosvg

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv0.5.2
    • removedInput schema / additionalProperties
      Removed value: -false
  2. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden. It does add real behavioral signal with "standalone" plus "SVG text or PNG image," implying the artifact is returned inline rather than written to disk or embedded in a ZPL job. It says nothing about errors for invalid data/type combinations, size limits, or encoding constraints, which matter because barcode types have strict data-length rules.

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 action and output forms, with the supported-type list appended as scannable detail. Nothing is redundant and nothing wastes space.

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

Completeness3/5

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

For a three-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the definition should say more about what comes back — an SVG string versus base64/binary PNG — and about failure modes. As written it is adequate to call correctly but leaves the return shape to inference.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema covers 67% of parameters and leaves the `format` enum undocumented; the description compensates by explaining that output is "SVG text or PNG image," giving each enum value concrete meaning. The full list of supported `type` values likewise extends beyond the schema's terse "Barcode type, e.g. code128." Only per-type data constraints remain unaddressed.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Generate a standalone barcode") and enumerates the supported symbologies, so an agent knows exactly what it produces. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the ZPL-validation siblings, but those are clearly a different operation, so confusion risk is low.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is the tool for rendering a barcode when a label preview/validation sibling is not what you want. There is no explicit "use this when..." statement nor any named alternative or precondition.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools