生成 UUID（通用唯一识别码）。支持 v4 随机 UUID（默认）和 v5 命名空间 UUID（SHA-1 确定性生成，需提供 namespace 和 name）。count 可一次生成多个（1~1000）。namespace 支持预定义名 dns/url/oid/x500 或完整 UUID 字符串。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | No | ||
| count | No | ||
| version | No | v4 | |
| namespace | No |
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 the behavioral burden. It discloses key behaviors: v4 is random, v5 is SHA-1 deterministic, count supports 1-1000, and namespace accepts predefined names or full UUID strings. It does not describe return shape or error handling, but those are minor for a UUID generation utility.
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 compact and front-loaded with the primary purpose. Each clause adds useful information without repetition or filler. It packs version behavior, prerequisites, count limits, and namespace options into two efficient sentences.
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 simple utility tool with four optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers the main use cases and constraints well. The only notable omission is an explicit statement of the return format when count > 1, but the phrasing strongly implies a list of UUIDs.
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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does so thoroughly: version (v4 default vs v5), count (1-1000), namespace (predefined names or UUID string), and name (needed for v5) are all explained with meaningful 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 what the tool does: generate UUIDs, with explicit support for v4 random and v5 namespace-based versions. It gives a specific verb and resource, but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools; the sibling names are distinct enough that confusion is unlikely.
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?
Provides clear usage context: v4 is the default, v5 is for deterministic generation and requires namespace and name. It also gives the count range and namespace formats. It does not mention when not to use this tool or point to alternatives, but the sibling tools serve unrelated purposes.
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 maps to a distinct operation: timestamp conversion, unit conversion, JSON processing, QR generation, and UUID generation. There is no functional overlap or realistic chance of selecting the wrong tool.
All names follow a clear verb_object snake_case pattern: convert_timestamp, convert_unit, format_json, generate_qr, generate_uuid. The verb prefixes consistently reflect the action category.
Five tools is a well-scoped size for a focused developer utility server; each tool provides a distinct, reusable capability and none feels redundant or extraneous.
Each utility is functionally self-contained: timestamp conversion works in both directions, JSON supports format/minify/validate, QR supports SVG/PNG, and UUID supports v4/v5. The set is a loose collection rather than a tightly defined domain, so common utilities like hashing or base64 are absent, but this is a minor gap rather than a blocking one.