apidx UUID Generator
Server Details
Random UUID v4 (RFC 9562) as an HTTP API: 1-100 UUIDs per call, in uuid, URN, hex or integer...
- Status
- Healthy
- Last Tested
- Transport
- Streamable HTTP · MCP 2025-06-18
- URL
TDQS
Scored across 1 tool
There is only one tool, so there is no possibility of confusing it with another. Its purpose (returning a UUID) is unambiguous despite the noisy description about x402 pricing.
get_uuid follows a clear snake_case verb_noun convention, but with a single tool there is no pattern to actually verify consistency against.
A single tool is very thin for a server whose domain (UUID generation) typically implies bulk generation, version/template selection, and validation. It only earns a point above the minimum because a minimal generator can technically be a one-operation service.
Only generation is exposed: no bulk generation, no UUID version control (v1/v4/v7), no parsing/validation of existing UUIDs, and no configuration options. Agents needing anything beyond one random UUID hit a dead end.
Available Tools
1 toolget_uuidThe same UUID generation on the x402 faceCInspect
The same UUID generation on the x402 face: the body adds network/asset (base/USDC) as in the reference x402 listing's response. Price: $0.0017 a call (3 free calls a day without an API key).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| count | No | How many UUIDs to return, 1-100 (default 1) | |
| format | No | uuid: canonical 8-4-4-4-12 (default); urn: urn:uuid: prefix; hex: 32 hex digits; int: 128-bit decimal |
TDQS
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses pricing ($0.0017 per call) and authentication behavior (3 free calls/day without an API key), plus a network/asset implication (base/USDC). It does not cover rate limits beyond the free tier, error behavior, or response shape, so it is only partially transparent.
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 short, but the opening clause about 'the x402 face' and the reference listing is confusing and does not earn its place. The pricing sentence is useful and front-loading the UUID purpose would improve structure.
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, parameters are fully documented in the schema, and no output schema exists. The description adds cost and auth context, which is helpful, but the cryptic x402 framing leaves an agent without a clear, complete mental model of the tool's behavior.
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 100%, so the schema already documents both 'count' and 'format' including the enum meanings. The description adds no parameter-specific semantics, which is acceptable at full coverage but earns only the baseline score.
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 identifies the resource as 'UUID generation,' so an agent can infer it returns UUIDs. However, the phrasing is dominated by opaque references to 'the x402 face' and 'the reference x402 listing's response,' which obscure rather than clarify the core purpose. It is minimally viable but not a clean verb+resource statement.
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?
There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no alternatives, and no conditions for choosing this tool. The pricing and free-call details give some cost context but do not tell an agent when this tool is appropriate versus any other path.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Tool Schema Changelog
Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
1 tool update
- First observed
get_uuid
Related MCP Connectors
Exact hashing, base64/hex/URL encoding, JWT decoding and UUIDs for AI agents. No auth required.
Developer toolkit: UUID, timestamp, unit conversion, JSON tools, and QR code (SVG). Free.
Related MCP Servers
- FlicenseNot gradedqualityDmaintenanceCryptographically secure random number generation and randomized resources, including tools for numbers, strings, dice rolls, UUIDs, and passphrases.4-
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityBmaintenanceValidates and generates UUIDs, including parsing version, variant, timestamps, and creating random v4 UUIDs.181 npmMIT
- FlicenseDqualityDmaintenanceA simple service that generates random UUIDs when requested through Claude Desktop.1-
- FlicenseNot gradedqualityDmaintenanceGenerates cryptographically secure, compliant UUIDs (v4, v5, v7) to prevent AI-hallucinated identifiers that would cause database collisions.7 npm3-
Glama MCP Gateway
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.