Generates cryptographically random integers in [min, max] (inclusive), using crypto/rand — an actual random value, not a guess. count defaults to 1, max 1000.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| max | Yes | upper bound, inclusive; must be >= min | |
| min | Yes | lower bound, inclusive | |
| count | No | how many numbers to generate, 1-1000, default 1 |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| numbers | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the use of crypto/rand, the inclusive nature of the range, count defaults and limits, and emphasizes actual randomness. It does not mention error conditions, but the schema covers bounds constraints.
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: the first front-loads the core function and cryptographic property, the second states limits. Every sentence earns its place, and there is no filler beyond the mild rhetorical flourish 'not a guess'.
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 generation tool, the description is complete: it covers range, cryptographic nature, count limits, and defaults. The schema fully documents parameters and an output schema exists, so missing return-format details are handled elsewhere. Minor gaps like invalid input handling are not essential.
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 the baseline is 3. The description adds little parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema: it repeats the count default and inclusive bounds already present in the property descriptions. It does not introduce new parameter details.
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 states a specific verb ('generates'), a precise resource ('cryptographically random integers'), and the exact inclusive range [min, max]. It is unambiguous and distinguishes the tool's core function even without sibling tools to compare against.
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 conveys a clear usage context: use when cryptographically secure random integers are needed, explicitly contrasting with 'not a guess'. It lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance, but with no sibling tools or alternatives mentioned, the context is sufficient.
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.