DRBG-derived random bytes (base64), anonymous and rate-limited. Capped at 64 bytes/request; powers the public dice player.
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": "random"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| bytes | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description compensates by disclosing key behaviors: DRBG-derived (deterministic but seeded), anonymous, rate-limited, and capped at 64 bytes. It does not mention idempotency or side effects, but covers the most critical aspects.
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 a single, information-dense sentence with no wasted words, covering origin, format, anonymity, rate limit, cap, and use case.
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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the key constraints and usage context. It misses details on error handling or response format, but these are minor gaps.
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 0%, but the parameter name 'bytes' is self-explanatory and the description reinforces the cap. The description does not explicitly map the parameter to the output length, but the context is sufficient.
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 it provides random bytes in base64 format, with a specific cap of 64 bytes, and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like random_bytes by mentioning DRBG derivation and its role powering the dice player.
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?
It implies usage for small, anonymous random byte generation, but does not explicitly compare to alternatives like random_bytes or provide when-not-to-use scenarios.
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.