QR for Agent

bulk_update_qr_codes

Update up to 50 QR codes in one request. Change target URLs and/or labels. Non-existent short_ids are reported individually without failing the batch.

Instructions

Update multiple QR codes in a single request (up to 50). Change target URLs and/or labels. Items with non-existent short_id are reported as not_found without failing the whole batch.

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": {
      "items": "<items>"
    },
    "name": "bulk_update_qr_codes"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`items`	Yes	Array of QR code updates. Max 50 per request.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Mar 30, 2026

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses partial failure behavior for non-existent short_ids. However, it omits that other fields (expires_at, scheduled_url, scheduled_at) can be updated and doesn't specify atomicity or response details.

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 core purpose and limit, followed by key behavioral detail. No unnecessary words.

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?

Given no output schema and moderate complexity, the description explains batch limit and partial failure but fails to list all updatable fields (only mentions target URLs and labels, while schema includes expires_at, etc.). Missing response format details.

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% with descriptions for all fields. Description adds behavioral context about partial failure but not new meaning for individual parameters beyond the schema.

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?

Description clearly states the verb 'Update', the resource 'multiple QR codes', and specific scope 'up to 50' and fields 'target URLs and/or labels'. It distinguishes from siblings like bulk_delete_qr_codes and single-update tools.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

Implicitly advises use for batch updates with a clear limit (up to 50). However, no explicit comparison to single-update alternatives or when to prefer bulk vs single.

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