Skip to main content
Glama

QR code image

qr_code_png

Generate a QR code as a downloadable PNG image. Returns a hosted download URL valid for 24 hours. Free demo: 3 renders/day. With a free ToolForte API key (Authorization: Bearer tf_..., get one at https://toolforte.com/developers), which spends your monthly unit balance: 25 units per render.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
sizeNoImage width and height in pixels, 128 to 1024 (default 512)
textYesText or URL to encode

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
urlNoHosted download URL of the produced file
bytesNoSize in bytes
resultNoThe result, when it is not an object
meteringNoWhat this call cost and what allowance remains
expiresAtNoWhen the download URL stops working (ISO 8601)
contentTypeNoMIME type of the produced file

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / size / description
      Added value: +"Image width and height in pixels, 128 to 1024 (default 512)"
    • changedOutput schema / (root)
      Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
      +  "$schema": "https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema",
      +  "additionalProperties": {},
      +  "properties": {
      +    "bytes": {
      +      "description": "Size in bytes",
      +      "type": "number"
      +    },
      +    "contentType": {
      +      "description": "MIME type of the produced file",
      +      "type": "string"
      +    },
      +    "expiresAt": {
      +      "description": "When the download URL stops working (ISO 8601)",
      +      "type": "string"
      +    },
      +    "metering": {
      +      "additionalProperties": {},
      +      "description": "What this call cost and what allowance remains",
      +      "properties": {
      +        "remaining": {
      +          "type": "number"
      +        },
      +        "source": {
      +          "type": "string"
      +        }
      +      },
      +      "type": "object"
      +    },
      +    "result": {
      +      "description": "The result, when it is not an object"
      +    },
      +    "url": {
      +      "description": "Hosted download URL of the produced file",
      +      "type": "string"
      +    }
      +  },
      +  "type": "object"
      +}
  2. First observed

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The description discloses several non-obvious behaviors beyond the annotations: the result is a hosted download URL valid for 24 hours, demo usage is capped at 3 renders/day, and authorized usage costs 25 units per render. It also gives the exact Authorization header format and where to obtain the key. This substantially exceeds what annotations alone communicate.

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?

The description is compact and front-loaded with the primary purpose, followed by outcome, demo limit, auth, and pricing. Every sentence provides distinct, useful information with no fluff or repetition.

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

Completeness5/5

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

The description covers the key operational facts an agent needs: output format, URL expiry, demo constraints, authentication method, and cost per render. Combined with a fully documented schema and an output schema, there are no major missing pieces for invoking the tool correctly.

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 the schema already documents both text and size adequately. The description does not add parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, but it doesn't need to; the schema carries the load. Baseline 3 is appropriate here.

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 opens with a clear, specific action: 'Generate a QR code as a downloadable PNG image.' It identifies both the resource (QR code) and output format (PNG), which distinguishes it from image manipulation siblings like image_resize or image_convert. The title 'QR code image' aligns with the description and adds no ambiguity.

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 operational context: there is a free demo limited to 3 renders/day, and using a ToolForte API key consumes 25 units per render. It does not explicitly list alternatives or when-not-to-use cases, but the tool's purpose is unique enough among siblings that this is not a significant gap.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Every tool targets a distinct resource or action, and the detailed descriptions clearly separate near neighbors like generate_test_bsn versus generate_brp_test_data, read_page versus url_screenshot versus url_to_pdf, and image_compress/convert/resize. Even with 40 tools, there is no real boundary-blurring overlap.

Naming Consistency3/5

All names are snake_case and readable, but the set mixes conventions: verb_noun (generate_*, validate_*), noun_verb (pdf_merge, image_resize), conversion-style names (csv_to_json, html_to_pdf), and bare nouns (base64, qr_code_png). The groups are recognizable, but there is no single predictable pattern.

Tool Count2/5

Forty tools is an oversized surface for an agent to consider on every call, well above the point where tool selection cost starts to hurt. The broad purpose explains the count, but many one-off utilities could be grouped or exposed selectively.

Completeness3/5

The server covers many domains—encoding, Dutch test data, image/PDF handling, memory, and workflows—but several categories are partial: there are no reverse conversions like json_to_csv or html_to_markdown, no PDF text extraction, and no workflow create/update/delete tools. Agents can work around some gaps, but notable operations are missing.

Resources