Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
labelixa-mcp

labelixa-mcp

Official
by Labelixa
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Remote

explain_zpl

Human-readable health REPORT for a finished ZPL label with a 0-100 score, sectioned (syntax, size/DPI, orientation, barcodes, fonts, memory): only assessable sections count, the rest say 'not assessed'.

Instructions

Human-readable health REPORT for a finished ZPL label with a 0-100 score, sectioned (syntax, size/DPI, orientation, barcodes, fonts, memory): only assessable sections count, the rest say 'not assessed'. Use it to review or explain a label to a person; for a quick pass/fail check while editing use zpl_validate. Pass the real label size — findings depend on it.

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": {
      "zpl": "<zpl>"
    },
    "name": "explain_zpl"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
zplYesRaw ZPL code
dpmmNoPrinter density in dots per mm (6, 8, 12 or 24)
modelNoOptional printer model as manufacturer/model (e.g. zebra/zd421) to add a model-compatibility section
width_inNoLabel width in inches (at most 15)
height_inNoLabel height in inches (at most 15)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed3 schema fields changedv0.5.2
    • removedInput schema / additionalProperties
      Removed value: -false
    • addedInput schema / properties / dpmm / maximum
      Added value: +9007199254740991
    • addedInput schema / properties / dpmm / minimum
      Added value: +-9007199254740991
  2. Changed6 schema fields changedv0.4.2
    • removedInput schema / properties / dpmm / maximum
      Removed value: -24
    • removedInput schema / properties / dpmm / minimum
      Removed value: -6
    • changedInput schema / properties / height_in / description
      Previous value: -"Label height in inches"New value: +"Label height in inches (at most 15)"
    • addedInput schema / properties / height_in / maximum
      Added value: +15
    • changedInput schema / properties / width_in / description
      Previous value: -"Label width in inches"New value: +"Label width in inches (at most 15)"
    • addedInput schema / properties / width_in / maximum
      Added value: +15
  3. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the disclosure burden and does well by explaining the report structure, scoring, and the 'not assessed' behavior for non-assessable sections. It implies a read-only review operation but does not explicitly state side effects, permissions, or error behavior.

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?

The description is front-loaded with the report purpose and scoring, then routes between this tool and zpl_validate, then adds the key size caveat. Every sentence contributes useful information without waste.

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

Completeness5/5

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

There is no output schema, so the description appropriately explains the return format as a sectioned 0-100 health report and notes that only assessable sections are counted. Given full schema coverage and the sibling alternative named, an agent has enough context to call this tool correctly.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all five parameters. The description adds meaningful semantic emphasis by warning that the real label size must be passed because findings depend on it.

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?

The description states a specific output, a human-readable health report for a finished ZPL label, including the 0-100 score and the sections it covers. It clearly distinguishes this from zpl_validate by positioning zpl_validate for quick pass/fail checks while editing.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

It explicitly says to use this tool to review or explain a label to a person and names zpl_validate as the alternative for quick pass/fail validation. It also tells the caller to pass the real label size because findings depend on it.

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