Skip to main content
Glama
Maxamed-Maxamed

google-fonts-mcp

by Maxamed-Maxamed
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

preview_text

Render sample text in any Google Font with custom size, weight, italic, and color, returning a self-contained HTML preview page.

Instructions

Render sample text in a Google Font. Returns a self-contained HTML page. The weight/italic combination must exist in the family.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
sizeNoFont size in pixels (8-200)
textNoSample text to renderThe quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog
colourNoText colour: hex (e.g. "#1a1a1a"), a CSS colour name, or rgb()/hsl()#111111
familyYesFamily name, case-insensitive (e.g. "Open Sans")
italicNoRender in italic
weightNoFont weight, e.g. 400 or 700

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral transparency burden. It usefully discloses that the tool returns a self-contained HTML page and that the weight/italic combination must exist in the family, which informs expected behavior and failure conditions.

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 short sentences with no filler. The primary purpose is stated first, the output type second, and the critical constraint third. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

For a relatively simple rendering tool with fully documented parameters, the description is adequate. It explains what is returned and the key validity constraint. It could be more complete by mentioning what happens if the font or weight/italic combination is not found, but no critical information needed to attempt a call is missing.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds semantic value beyond the schema by highlighting that weight and italic are not independent choices but must correspond to an actual combination available in the specified family.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Render sample text in a Google Font.' It also states the output type ('self-contained HTML page'), making it clearly distinct from sibling tools like search_fonts or get_font_details.

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 description clearly implies this tool is for previewing how text looks in a font, and the 'must exist in the family' note adds a usage constraint. However, it does not explicitly compare with alternatives or state when to prefer this over search_fonts or get_font_details.

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