Save a reusable style theme. style is a QR style object (fgColor, bgColor, dotType, cornerSquareType, etc.). Requires an OpenQR API key.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | ||
| style | Yes | QR style JSON (colours, dot/corner shapes, logo, gradient, frame…). |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Without annotations, the description carries full behavioral burden. It discloses the API key requirement and the reusable nature of the theme, but omits success/failure behavior, idempotency (does it overwrite existing themes?), and possible side effects. Provides moderate transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences with zero waste. The first sentence states the purpose ('Save a reusable style theme'), and the second elaborates on the style parameter and a key requirement. Front-loaded and efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a 2-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the style parameter detail and API key requirement but leaves notable gaps: no mention of what the theme is used for (QR generation?), whether names must be unique, or what response the tool returns. Adequate but not fully complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 50% coverage (only style has a description). The description adds specific field examples (fgColor, bgColor, dotType, cornerSquareType) that are not in the schema, adding meaning beyond structured data. However, the 'name' parameter still lacks guidance on uniqueness or format constraints.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Save') and resource ('reusable style theme'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like delete_theme and list_themes. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from create_dynamic_qr, which also involves style configuration.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The only usage guidance is the prerequisite 'Requires an OpenQR API key.' It lacks context on when to create a theme versus using inline styles in create_dynamic_qr, or when to reuse existing themes. No alternatives or exclusions are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool targets a distinct operation on a specific resource: static vs dynamic QR creation, single vs bulk, subdomain management, folder/theme CRUD, scan statistics. No two tools have overlapping purposes; even similar verbs like create_dynamic_qr and bulk_create_dynamic_qr are clearly differentiated by cardinality.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern using snake_case (e.g., create_dynamic_qr, get_scans, set_subdomain). Compound verbs like bulk_create are standard. No mixing of styles or irregular names.
17 tools is well-scoped for a QR code management server. It covers creation (static, dynamic, bulk), update, delete, retrieval, listing, scan stats, subdomain management, folders, and themes—each tool serves a clear purpose without bloat.
The toolset provides full CRUD for dynamic QR codes and subdomain management, plus scan statistics, folder and theme management. Minor gaps: missing update operations for folders and themes, and no search/filter tool for codes. These are acceptable omissions given the API's typical usage.