Skip to main content
Glama

Magic Hour

by io.github.magichourhq

ai_qr_code_generator_create_image

Create an AI QR code. Each QR code costs 0 credits.

MCP guidance:

  • This starts an async image generation job and returns id plus credits_charged immediately. If the user wants the finished result, call the wait_for_image_project helper with the returned id, or poll the matching GET /v1/image-projects/{id} endpoint until status is complete, error, or canceled. Completed projects include downloads with direct URLs. The custom wait helper also returns exact_download_urls separately from expiration metadata.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameNoGive your image a custom name for easy identification.Qr Code - dateTime
styleYes
contentYesThe content of the QR code.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesUnique ID of the image. Use it with the [Get image Project API](https://docs.magichour.ai/api-reference/image-projects/get-image-details) to fetch status and downloads.
credits_chargedYesThe amount of credits deducted from your account to generate the image. We charge credits right when the request is made. If an error occurred while generating the image(s), credits will be refunded and this field will be updated to include the refund.

Schema Changelog

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

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, and it excels: it discloses that the tool starts an async job, returns id and credits_charged immediately, lists possible terminal statuses, and describes how download URLs are exposed. It also notes the wait helper's special exact_download_urls behavior, which is highly informative.

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 every sentence earns its place: purpose, cost, async behavior, statuses, and download retrieval are all covered without padding. The 'MCP guidance' section front-loads the critical operational detail after a one-line purpose statement.

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?

For an asynchronous mutation-style tool with no annotations, the description is remarkably complete. It explains the immediate result, how to obtain the final result, which statuses to expect, and where to find direct download URLs. Nothing critical is missing for an agent to invoke the tool and handle its outcome 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?

The input schema already documents content, style, and name, including art_style examples, so the description adds little parameter-level meaning. Schema coverage is 67%, and the description does not compensate with additional guidance about how the parameters affect the generated QR code. It does not contradict the schema, but it also does not enrich it.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Create an AI QR code.' This clearly distinguishes the tool from the many sibling create_image tools, since QR code generation is a distinct capability. The zero-credit note also adds a meaningful, tool-specific detail.

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 context for the async workflow and explicitly instructs the agent to call wait_for_image_project with the returned id if the user wants the finished result. It does not explicitly contrast this tool with alternative image-generation tools, but the procedural guidance is strong and unambiguous.

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

All Magic Hour toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Disambiguation3/5

Most generation tools target distinct media types or effects (e.g., clothes changer, head swap, lip sync), but several boundaries blur: ai_image_editor_create_image is a generic edit tool that overlaps conceptually with ai_face_editor_edit_image, ai_image_upscaler_create_image, and background remover. The wait_for_*_project helpers also overlap functionally with the *_projects_retrieve_details status tools, and ai_voice_cloner_create_audio vs. ai_voice_generator_create_audio are easy to confuse by name.

Naming Consistency2/5

Naming conventions are mixed: many tools follow ai_<product>_create_<media>, but others are product-first (animation_create_video, body_swap_create_image) and resource-group tools follow a different noun_verb pattern (audio_projects_retrieve_details, video_projects_delete). Verbs are inconsistent too (create_image, edit_image, detect_faces, retrieve_details, wait_for, fetch), so an agent cannot reliably predict the next tool name.

Tool Count2/5

At 44 tools, the set is heavy: it includes 27 generation tools plus three wait helpers, three status retrieval tools, three delete tools, three fetch helpers, and upload/ping utilities. While the underlying product is broad, many helpers could be consolidated, and the overall surface exceeds the range where each tool earns a clear place.

Completeness3/5

The lifecycle is mostly covered for image, video, and audio projects: create, poll/retrieve, fetch download, delete, and file upload/presigned-URL generation are all present. However, there is no project listing or cancel operation, and face detection only has detect/details with no delete or wait helper, leaving some workflow gaps an agent must work around.

Resources