Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Payware MCP Server

Payware MCP Server

Official
by payware
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Remote

payware_products_get_placement_image

Read-onlyIdempotent

Generates a printable QR code or Code 128 barcode image for a product placement, returning PNG, JPG, or SVG output for print.

Instructions

[Merchant] A placement's QR code (carrying the placement's payware link, https://go.payware.eu/{placementId}, which needs no API call) or Code 128 barcode (carrying the plain ID), for print. PNG and JPG come back as an image, SVG as its markup.

Endpoint: GET /products/{productId}/placements/{placementId}/image

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": {
      "productId": "<productId>",
      "placementId": "<placementId>"
    },
    "name": "payware_products_get_placement_image"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
typeNoQR code or barcode. Default QRQR
formatNoImage format. Default PNGPNG
productIdYesThe product's ID: pr + 8 letters or digits, e.g. pr7e4rCToG
useSandboxNoUse the sandbox (the default) rather than production
placementIdYesThe placement's ID: pl + 8 letters or digits, e.g. pl7e4rCToG

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv2.2.0

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the bar is lower; the description still adds real value by disclosing that PNG/JPG return binary image data while SVG returns markup, and that the QR link needs no API call. It omits anything about response size, caching, or auth scope, so not a 5.

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 tight sentences plus the endpoint line; the payware-link note is front-loaded and the format/return behavior follows immediately. No filler or repetition of schema content.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully explains what comes back per format, which is the main ambiguity for an image endpoint. An agent still lacks any note on permissions or error behavior, so it falls just short of complete.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% and both enums are documented, giving a baseline of 3. The description adds meaning beyond the enum by explaining the semantic difference between the QR payload (placement link) and BARCODE payload (plain ID), which helps the agent choose correctly.

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?

States a specific verb+resource: fetches a placement's QR code or Code 128 barcode image for print. It even explains what each encodes (payware link vs plain ID), which no sibling name suggests. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from payware_products_get_product_image or payware_poi_get_qrcode, so a 4 rather than 5.

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?

'for print' implies the intended context, and the type/format options hint at use cases. But there is no explicit when-to-use vs when-not guidance and no mention of the related product-image or POI QR tools, leaving the agent to infer selection.

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