QR Branding

Build a Wi-Fi QR

qr_build_wifi

Read-onlyIdempotent

Encode Wi-Fi credentials into a scannable QR code to share network access without typing passwords. Returns a WIFI: payload string and generated QR image.

Instructions

Encode Wi-Fi credentials (SSID, password, auth type, hidden flag) into a scannable Wi-Fi QR. Returns both the WIFI:... payload string and a generated QR image.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`ssid`	Yes	The Wi-Fi network name (SSID).
`hidden`	No	Set true if the SSID is hidden (not broadcast). Defaults to false.
`authType`	No	Authentication type. Defaults to "WPA". Use "nopass" for open networks.
`password`	No	Network password. Required unless authType is "nopass".

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description
`format`	Yes	File format the engine rendered: png, svg, jpg, webp or pdf.
`payload`	Yes	The payload string the engine built and the QR encodes (WIFI:..., BEGIN:VCARD..., geo:...).
`filePath`	No	PDF in the stdio package only: local temp file the PDF was written to.
`mimeType`	No	MIME type of the rendered file (the engine's contentType).
`sizeBytes`	No	Size of the rendered file in bytes, as reported by the engine.
`resourceUri`	No	PDF on the remote server only: URI of the embedded resource block that carries the file.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.4Oct 18, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the return shape (a WIFI:... payload string plus a generated QR image), which is genuinely useful context beyond the annotations, though it says nothing about failure modes such as invalid auth/credential combinations.

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, front-loaded with the action and credential set, followed by the return value. No filler or redundancy.

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 an output schema present and 100% parameter coverage, the description need not explain return values, yet it briefly does. It is complete enough for a simple deterministic builder, with only the missing sibling-routing guidance as a small gap.

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%, so each parameter (ssid, password, authType, hidden) is already documented in the schema, including the nopass enum meaning. The description only echoes the field names, adding no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Encode Wi-Fi credentials ... into a scannable Wi-Fi QR') and enumerates the inputs it consumes, making it clearly distinguishable from qr_build_vcard, qr_build_geo, and the generic qr_generate siblings.

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?

Usage is implied by the name and description — you use this when you need a Wi-Fi QR — but there is no explicit routing guidance versus the generic qr_generate tool or the other qr_build_* variants, and no stated prerequisites or exclusions.

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

Deploy Server