Generate customized QR codes from URLs or text with selectable colors, size, error correction, and output format; no credits required.
Generate customized QR codes from any URL or text. Choose colors, error correction level, size, and output format. Completely free — no credits required.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| width | No | ||
| margin | No | ||
| content | Yes | ||
| output_format | No | ||
| background_color | No | ||
| error_correction | No | ||
| foreground_color | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses a cost trait ('Completely free — no credits required'), which is genuine value, but it omits what the tool returns (image data vs URL), how the output is delivered, or any size/rate limits.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Three short, front-loaded sentences with no filler; the purpose leads and the customization options and pricing follow logically. Efficiently sized for the tool's scope.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description must do more work. It covers purpose and hints at most parameters but leaves return format, parameter value formats, and content/margin semantics unexplained, leaving real gaps for a 7-parameter tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so all 7 parameters are undocumented in the schema. The description names several (colors, error correction level, size, output format), adding meaning for most parameters, but it never explains accepted value formats (e.g., hex colors, valid error-correction levels, units for width/margin) and omits 'margin' and 'content' entirely.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific verb and resource ('Generate customized QR codes from any URL or text') and immediately lists the customization axes. It is easily distinguished from all sibling tools, none of which produce QR codes.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Usage is implied by the tool's clear purpose, but the description offers no explicit when-to-use framing, prerequisites, or alternatives. There is no direct sibling competitor, so the absence of routing guidance is less harmful, but nothing is stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.