Generate a new data set (new seed), for the whole mock or for one route and the routes sharing its collection. A full new set forgets persisted writes.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| seed | No | ||
| slug | Yes | Subdomain of the mock, e.g. "brisk-otter" | |
| locale | No | Switch the data language (whole mock only) | |
| routeId | No | Route identifier, lowercase method: "get:/users/{id}" | |
| ownerToken | No | Owner token received at creation (not needed when the account is connected with an API token) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / localeAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Switch the data language (whole mock only)",
+ "enum": [
+ "en",
+ "fr"
+ ],
+ "type": "string"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose an important destructive side effect ('A full new set forgets persisted writes'), which is real value. However it doesn't say whether a route-scoped regeneration also discards persisted writes for that route, nor what the response contains, leaving gaps on a mutation tool.
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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and then the side effect. Slightly dense phrasing ('for one route and the routes sharing its collection') but no wasted filler.
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?
Five parameters, no annotations, and no output schema mean the description should say more about scope-dependent behavior (does route-level regeneration drop writes?) and return values. It covers the headline behavior but not the full decision surface.
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 80%, and the schema already explains slug, routeId, locale, and ownerToken. The description only adds that a new seed is generated (implying the seed parameter) and that a full set discards writes; the interplay between seed and routeId is not clarified.
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?
States a specific action ('Generate a new data set (new seed)') and its scope: the whole mock, or one route plus routes sharing its collection. It's clear what the tool does, though it doesn't explicitly name the closely related siblings (reset_state, sync_mock) it differs from.
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 scope sentence implies when to pass routeId versus omitting it, but there is no explicit 'use this instead of reset_state/sync_mock when...' guidance. With several similarly-named state-manipulation siblings, an agent is left to infer which one regenerates data.
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.