Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
labelixa-mcp

labelixa-mcp

Official
by Labelixa
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Remote

zpl_preview

Render raw ZPL label code to a PNG image through the Labelixa API for visual inspection, with controls for density, label dimensions, and multi-label index.

Instructions

Render ZPL label code to a PNG image via the Labelixa API. This is a SERVER-SIDE render for inspection — it is not a guarantee of how a specific physical printer will output the label.

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": "zpl_preview"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
zplYesRaw ZPL code (^XA ... ^XZ)
dpmmNoPrinter density in dots per mm (6, 8, 12 or 24)
indexNoWhich label to render when the stream contains several
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. Changed7 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
    • addedInput schema / properties / index / maximum
      Added value: +10000
    • 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

A3.8/5.0
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 adds a genuinely valuable behavioral caveat: this is server-side rendering and does not guarantee physical printer output. It does not cover auth requirements, rate limits, or how the resulting PNG is delivered, which keeps it below a 5.

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 tight sentences with the core action front-loaded and the caveat immediately following. Nothing is wasted or redundant.

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?

The description names the output format (PNG), which is important since no output schema exists. It leaves open how the image is returned (URL vs. binary/base64) and whether multi-label streams yield multiple images, a minor but real 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 coverage is 100% and every parameter (zpl, dpmm, index, width_in, height_in) is documented inline, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds no syntax or semantic detail beyond the schema.

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 ("Render ZPL label code to a PNG image") and names the underlying service, so the agent knows exactly what it produces. It does not explicitly contrast with siblings like zpl_validate, but the render-vs-validate distinction is inferable from the verb.

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?

The phrase "for inspection" implies a visualization use case, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance or routing to alternatives such as zpl_validate (to check syntax) or zpl_compatibility. The agent must infer the workflow position.

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