Make strong random passwords (crypto RNG, no look-alike characters).
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": "password"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| n | No | How many, 1-50 | |
| len | No | Length 4-256, default 20 | |
| no_symbols | No | Leave out symbols |
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 and does deliver: it guarantees a cryptographic RNG and states a character-policy decision (no look-alike characters). It omits return shape (single string vs list when n>1) and whether anything is stored or logged, which is a real but modest gap for a stateless generator.
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?
A single short sentence with the core guarantee (crypto RNG) and the distinguishing trait (no look-alike characters) front-loaded. Nothing is wasted and nothing essential is buried.
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, side-effect-free generator with fully documented optional params and no output schema, the description covers the essentials. The only missing piece is what the caller receives when n exceeds 1, which is a small omission rather than a blocking one.
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 all three optional parameters, their ranges, and defaults are already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.
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 verb and resource ('Make strong random passwords') plus the generation method, which is far more informative than the bare tool name 'password'. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling 'random' tool, so an agent must infer that this one is password-specific.
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 nature of the tool makes its intended use obvious, and there are no prerequisites or exclusions to state. However, it never says when to prefer it over the sibling 'random' generator or what to do when symbols or length constraints matter beyond the params themselves.
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.