Generate (default v7) or validate UUIDs. Batch generate up to 20. Same as GET /api/v1/uuid.
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "lab_uuid"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | No | UUID to validate | |
| count | No | ||
| action | No | ||
| version | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the default version and the batch limit, and 'Same as GET' hints at a read-only style operation. However, it doesn't describe validation return behavior, how invalid UUIDs are reported, or what happens when both id and count/action are provided.
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 core purpose, followed by the key batch constraint and an API reference. Every word earns its place with no filler or redundancy.
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 is simple and the description covers the main purpose, default version, and batch cap. However, with no annotations and no output schema, the absence of validation result semantics and parameter-interaction guidance leaves a noticeable gap, even for a lightweight utility.
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 only 25%, but the description compensates by explaining the action enum (generate/validate), the default version (7), and the batch count semantics. This adds meaning beyond the raw enums and integer limits, though it doesn't explicitly state which parameters apply to which action.
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 names the exact operation ('Generate or validate UUIDs'), specifies the default version (v7), and adds a concrete constraint ('Batch generate up to 20'). This clearly differentiates lab_uuid from the sibling tools like lab_codec or lab_hash without needing to inspect schemas.
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 clearly states the intended use: generate or validate UUIDs, with a batch option and a default version. It doesn't explicitly list exclusions or alternatives, but no sibling tool competes for this job, and 'Same as GET /api/v1/uuid' provides a recognizable API context.
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.