Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
tool-mcp-server

tool-mcp-server

by maple-awa
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

tool_qrcode_decode

Decode QR codes from image files to extract the embedded data. Upload a file and receive the content as a string.

Instructions

[image] QRCode Decode

Parameters:

  • file (bytes): File

Outputs:

  • data (string): Data

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "tool_qrcode_decode"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
dataNoData
fileNoFile (base64 file payload)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only lists inputs and outputs, omitting any details about supported image formats, error behaviors, or the nature of the decoded data. For a decode operation, this is a significant gap.

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 concise and well-structured with Parameters and Outputs sections, but it is so brief that it sacrifices informative content. It earns its place though minimal.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given that the tool has a nested file parameter and no output schema, the description should explain what the decoded output is and any constraints (e.g., image format). It only states 'data (string): Data', which is insufficient for an agent to understand the full behavior.

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?

The input schema already provides detailed descriptions for both parameters (including a nested file payload with base64, filename, and mimeType), so the description adds no value beyond restating 'file (bytes)'. The description also omits the 'data' input property that appears in the schema, creating potential confusion.

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 clearly conveys that the tool decodes QR codes, distinguishing it from the sibling tool_qrcode which likely generates them. However, the description is just the phrase 'QRCode Decode' with a parameter list, not a full sentence, but still understandable.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as when you have an image file and need its embedded text. No alternatives or exclusions are mentioned.

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