Skip to main content
Glama

banner

Render text as large ASCII headers using FIGlet fonts to create CLI titles and welcome messages. Choose from Standard, Small, Slant, Big, or Mini font styles.

Instructions

Render text as a large ASCII banner using FIGlet fonts. Great for CLI headers, welcome messages, and titles.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
textYesText to render (max 50 chars)
fontNoFont: Standard (default), Small (compact), Slant (italic), Big (bold), Mini (minimal)Standard

Implementation Reference

  • The core handler function 'renderBanner' that executes the banner tool logic. Takes text and font parameters, uses the figlet library to render ASCII art.
    export function renderBanner(text: string, font: BannerFont = 'Standard'): string {
      return figlet.textSync(text, { font });
    }
  • src/mcp.ts:96-107 (registration)
    MCP tool registration for 'banner'. Registers the tool with name, description, Zod schema validation, and handler callback that calls renderBanner.
    server.tool(
      'banner',
      'Render text as a large ASCII banner using FIGlet fonts. Great for CLI headers, welcome messages, and titles.',
      {
        text: z.string().max(50).describe('Text to render (max 50 chars)'),
        font: z.enum(BANNER_FONTS).default('Standard').describe('Font: Standard (default), Small (compact), Slant (italic), Big (bold), Mini (minimal)'),
      },
      async ({ text, font }) => {
        const banner = renderBanner(text, font);
        return { content: [{ type: 'text', text: banner }] };
      }
    );
  • Zod schema definition for the banner tool inputs. Validates 'text' (max 50 chars) and 'font' (enum with default).
    {
      text: z.string().max(50).describe('Text to render (max 50 chars)'),
      font: z.enum(BANNER_FONTS).default('Standard').describe('Font: Standard (default), Small (compact), Slant (italic), Big (bold), Mini (minimal)'),
  • BANNER_FONTS constant and BannerFont type definition. Defines the available font options for the banner tool.
    export const BANNER_FONTS = ['Standard', 'Small', 'Slant', 'Big', 'Mini'] as const;
    export type BannerFont = (typeof BANNER_FONTS)[number];
  • Helper function 'listBannerFonts' that returns font metadata with descriptions. Used by the /banner/fonts HTTP endpoint.
    export function listBannerFonts(): { name: BannerFont; description: string }[] {
      return [
        { name: 'Standard', description: 'Default balanced font' },
        { name: 'Small', description: 'Compact, saves tokens' },
        { name: 'Slant', description: 'Italic style' },
        { name: 'Big', description: 'Bold emphasis' },
        { name: 'Mini', description: 'Minimal 3-line font' },
      ];
    }
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It explains the transformation (text to ASCII banner) but omits behavioral traits like idempotency, side effects, or explicit output format (string vs. image). For a simple transformation tool, this is minimally adequate.

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 sentences with zero waste. The first sentence front-loads the core action (rendering), while the second provides high-value use cases that aid in tool selection. Every word earns its place.

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?

For a low-complexity tool (2 parameters, no nested objects) with 100% schema coverage, the description is sufficiently complete. It could explicitly mention the return type (ASCII string), but the tool's purpose is clear enough given the schema richness.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the schema fully documents both parameters (text constraints, font enum values). The description adds no additional parameter semantics, meeting the baseline expectation for high-coverage schemas.

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 uses a specific verb ('Render') and clearly identifies the resource transformation (text → large ASCII banner) and technology (FIGlet fonts). It distinguishes from siblings like 'kaomoji' (which implies emoticons) by specifying FIGlet/ASCII art.

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 provides implied usage context through 'Great for CLI headers, welcome messages, and titles,' indicating when to use it. However, it lacks explicit when-not guidance or named alternatives (e.g., distinguishing from sibling 'convert' or 'kaomoji').

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/rxolve/artscii'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server