Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
ChartQuery MCP Server

ChartQuery MCP Server

by chartquery
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

Label Convert

label_convert
Read-only

Convert printer commands between languages such as TSC, ZPL, EPL, and ESC/POS to produce thermal labels across compatible printer models.

Instructions

Label Convert. Convert printer commands from one language to another. POST source, from, and to. from is the source language (tsc, zpl, epl, …). to is the target (tsc, zpl, escpos, …). Credit cost: 5 credits per call.

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": {
      "source": "<source>",
      "from": "<from>",
      "to": "<to>"
    },
    "name": "label_convert"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
toYesTarget language. Allowed values: tsc, zpl, epl, cpcl, dpl, sbpl, escpos, starprnt, ipl. Default: "tsc".
dpiNoOverride DPI on the converted output.
fromYesSource language. Allowed values: tsc, zpl, epl, cpcl, dpl, sbpl, ipl. Default: "tsc".
speedNoOverride print speed, 1-18.
copiesNoOverride copies. Minimum 1.
fieldsNoComma-separated list of fields to keep in the response, with dot notation for nested fields (e.g. name,location.city). Does not change the credit cost.
sourceYesRaw printer commands to convert. Also send from and to.
densityNoOverride print darkness, 0-15.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so safety and network behavior are covered. The description adds genuinely new context by stating the cost ('5 credits per call'), which is not in any structured field. It does not describe the response shape or what happens with malformed or unsupported source commands.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the purpose before the call pattern and cost. The opening 'Label Convert.' merely repeats the tool title and is the one clearly wasted fragment.

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 an eight-parameter conversion tool with no output schema, the description covers only the required trio and never indicates what is returned (converted command text) or how the optional overrides affect output. The credit cost is a useful addition, but the response contract remains unstated.

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%, so all eight parameters, including dpi, speed, copies, density, and fields, are already documented in the schema. The description only restates the three required parameters and gives abbreviated language examples that the schema already enumerates in full, adding little beyond the baseline.

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?

The description states a specific verb and resource: 'Convert printer commands from one language to another,' which is concrete and distinguishable from conversion-adjacent siblings such as label_parse, label_compile, and label_render. It does not name those siblings explicitly, so an agent must infer the boundary from the verb alone.

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?

'POST source, from, and to' conveys the required call pattern, and the from/to gloss implies the use case (translating a label between printer languages). There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance versus label_parse or label_compile, and no mention of prerequisites or error conditions.

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