Get the full details of one of your QR codes by id: destination, short link, label, type, tags, folder, status and created date. Requires an OpenQR API key.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | The code id. |
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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It mentions 'Requires an OpenQR API key', which adds essential auth context. However, it does not disclose if the operation is read-only (likely but unconfirmed), what happens if the id is invalid or missing, or any side effects. The description implies a read but doesn't explicitly state it's non-destructive or safe.
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?
The description is two sentences, both earning their place: the first explains purpose and return fields, the second notes the prerequisite API key. It is front-loaded with the core action. Slightly wordy list of fields could be trimmed, but overall 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?
The tool has 1 parameter and no output schema, so completeness burden is moderate. The description lists the return fields, which helps the agent understand the output shape despite missing output schema. However, given no annotations and no explicit read-only confirmation, the agent may need to infer behavior. Adequate for a simple read tool but could be more explicit about non-destructive nature.
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?
Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema's 'The code id.' for the one parameter. It does clarify the use case (get full details) but doesn't elaborate on the id format, length, or constraints that the schema might omit.
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 'Get' and the resource 'full details of one of your QR codes by id', listing the specific fields returned. It distinguishes this from sibling tools like 'list_dynamic_qr' (which presumably returns a list without full details) and 'create_dynamic_qr' (which creates rather than reads). However, it could more explicitly differentiate from 'update_dynamic_qr' or other single-code tools.
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 description indicates the tool is for retrieving a specific QR code by ID, implying it should be used when you have a known id and need comprehensive details. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but given the sibling list, it's clear this is the retrieval-focused tool for a single code.
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.