api_loremLorem ipsum placeholder generator. ?paras=3 or ?words=50 [HTTP x402 price: $0.001]
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| params | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / params / additionalPropertiesRemoved value: -trueInput schema / properties / params / propertiesAdded value: +{
+ "paras": {
+ "anyOf": [
+ {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ {
+ "type": "null"
+ }
+ ],
+ "default": null
+ }
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does disclose a cost via 'HTTP x402 price: $0.001' and hints at request behavior through query examples, but it does not describe output format, auth requirements, or side effects; the operation is inherently non-destructive and the output schema exists, which mitigates the gap.
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 definition is one terse, front-loaded line; the purpose, examples, and price hint all earn their place. The compact style is mostly effective, though `HTTP x402` is cryptic and the `words` inconsistency makes the terseness less helpful than it could be.
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 has an output schema, so return values are covered. However, the unresolved conflict between `?words=50` and the schema's rejection of `words`, combined with zero annotations, leaves the definition incomplete for reliable agent invocation.
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?
The description provides `paras=3` and `words=50` as parameter examples, which adds meaning to a schema with zero field descriptions. However, `words` is not present in the schema and `additionalProperties: false` would reject it, so an agent could be misled into constructing an invalid call.
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 identifies the tool as a 'Lorem ipsum placeholder generator', naming both the resource and the operation. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools, but none of the listed siblings serve the same placeholder-generation purpose, so the intent is unambiguous.
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 examples `?paras=3` and `?words=50` imply the tool is used when placeholder text is needed and show the basic invocation shape. However, there is no explicit statement about when to use or avoid this tool relative to alternatives.
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.