linkbit-mcp

get_qr

Read-only

Download a QR code for a link in PNG or SVG, with optional color, logo, and print-ready settings.

Instructions

Download a QR code for a link. format=png|svg, optional color, logo, print.

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": {
      "id": "<id>"
    },
    "name": "get_qr"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`id`	Yes
`logo`	No
`color`	No
`print`	No
`format`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.4Oct 28, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing about behavior beyond that: no mention of whether it returns a binary image vs a URL, whether the QR is persisted, or any permission requirements.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Highly compact and front-loaded — action first, then parameter hints. The telegraphic style ('optional color, logo, print') is efficient but slightly clipped, bordering on note-form rather than a sentence.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With five parameters at 0% schema coverage and no output schema, the description should do more. It never explains the required id, the color value format, what logo/print actually toggle, or what the response looks like (image bytes? URL?), leaving real gaps for a download tool.

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 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning, and it does partially: it gives format values (png|svg) and names the optional color, logo, and print flags. However, the required 'id' parameter is never explained, color format (hex? name?) is unspecified, and the semantics of the boolean logo/print flags are not described.

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 and resource: 'Download a QR code for a link.' An agent can immediately tell this is a QR-generation/retrieval tool, distinct from sibling link-management tools. No sibling does anything similar, though the description doesn't say that explicitly.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, no mention of alternatives. Usage is only implied by the phrase 'for a link' and the id parameter. An agent must infer that this is called when a user wants a QR image for an existing link.

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

Deploy Server