barcode-scanner-mcp

Generate barcode

generate_barcode

Read-only

Encode text into barcode images in formats like Code128, EAN, DataMatrix, and PDF417. Returns a PNG for immediate use.

Instructions

Generate a barcode image in various formats. Returns a PNG image. Supported formats: code128, code39, code93, ean13, ean8, upca, upce, itf14, interleaved2of5, isbn, issn, ismn, datamatrix, pdf417, azteccode, gs1-128, pharmacode, codabar, msi, plessey, postnet, onecode, royalmail, code11, code49.

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": {
      "text": "<text>",
      "format": "<format>"
    },
    "name": "generate_barcode"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`text`	Yes	Data to encode in the barcode
`scale`	No	Scaling factor (default: 3)
`format`	Yes	Barcode format to generate
`height`	No	Bar height in mm (default: 10, ignored for 2D formats)
`include_text`	No	Show human-readable text below barcode (default: true)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.2.0Jul 31, 2026

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, covering safety. The description adds 'Returns a PNG image' as a behavioral detail not present in the schema or annotations. However, it discloses no format-specific constraints, error conditions, or side-effect details, so transparency is partial.

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?

The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the core action and output type. The long list of formats is redundant with the schema enum but serves as a quick reference and contains no filler words. It is efficient though slightly verbose due to the exhaustive list.

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?

Given the schema fully documents parameters and annotations cover the read-only safety, the description adequately explains the tool's function and output (PNG). It lacks details on error handling or format-specific limitations, but these are not critical with a well-defined schema. The description is sufficiently complete for selection and invocation.

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 description coverage is 100% (all 5 parameters have descriptions). The description repeats the format enum from the schema but adds no new parameter semantics, so it provides no value beyond the structured schema. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Generate a barcode image in various formats' and specifies the output type ('Returns a PNG image'). The list of supported formats differentiates it from sibling tools like generate_qr (which is not listed) and decode_image (which performs the opposite action).

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 implies usage by listing supported formats, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. No exclusions or alternative tool references are provided, leaving usage guidance implicit rather than explicit.

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

Deploy Server