Skip to main content
Glama

banner

Render text into large ASCII banners with FIGlet fonts for CLI headers, welcome messages, and titles.

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

  • src/mcp.ts:119-130 (registration)
    The 'banner' tool is registered on the MCP server using server.tool() with name 'banner', description, Zod schema for 'text' (max 50 chars) and 'font' (enum of BANNER_FONTS), and an async handler.
    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 }] };
      }
    );
  • The handler function for the 'banner' tool: calls renderBanner(text, font) and returns the result as text content.
    async ({ text, font }) => {
      const banner = renderBanner(text, font);
      return { content: [{ type: 'text', text: banner }] };
    }
  • Core helper function renderBanner() that uses the 'figlet' library to render text synchronously into ASCII art with the specified font.
    export function renderBanner(text: string, font: BannerFont = 'Standard'): string {
      return figlet.textSync(text, { font });
    }
  • Type definitions: BANNER_FONTS constant array and BannerFont type alias. Defines the five supported FIGlet fonts: Standard, Small, Slant, Big, Mini.
    export const BANNER_FONTS = ['Standard', 'Small', 'Slant', 'Big', 'Mini'] as const;
    export type BannerFont = (typeof BANNER_FONTS)[number];
  • Helper function listBannerFonts() returns metadata about each supported font (name and description).
    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 describes the tool as rendering, implying no side effects, but does not explicitly state it is stateless, safe, or what the output format is (e.g., plain text vs. printed). This is adequate but could be more explicit.

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, straightforward: first states action, second gives use cases. No extraneous words, front-loaded with key information.

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 simple tool, the description covers purpose and use cases adequately. It lacks details on the output (e.g., returns a string? prints? plain text?) but given schema completeness and no output schema, it is mostly complete.

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 coverage is 100% with both text and font parameters already described in the input schema. The description adds no extra meaning beyond 'large ASCII banner using FIGlet fonts', so it meets baseline but does not enhance parameter understanding.

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 clearly states the tool renders text as a large ASCII banner using FIGlet fonts, with specific use cases (CLI headers, welcome messages, titles). It distinguishes itself from unrelated siblings like animate, compose, convert, etc.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description provides clear usage context (CLI headers, welcome messages, titles) but does not explicitly mention when not to use it or compare with alternatives. The lack of exclusion or alternative mention keeps it from a 5.

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