uuidRandom UUID.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| body | No | Response body with UUID | |
| status | No | HTTP status code | |
| content_type | No | Content-Type header |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Output schema / properties / body / typePrevious value: -"object"New value: +[
+ "object",
+ "string"
+]Output schema / properties / body / propertiesAdded value: +{
+ "uuid": {
+ "type": "string"
+ }
+}Output schema / requiredRemoved value: -[
- "status",
- "content_type",
- "body"
-]Input schema / examplesAdded value: +[
+ {}
+]Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "properties": {
+ "body": {
+ "description": "Response body with UUID",
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "content_type": {
+ "description": "Content-Type header",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "status": {
+ "description": "HTTP status code",
+ "type": "number"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "status",
+ "content_type",
+ "body"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the description carries low burden. It adds no behavioral details beyond the fact that it returns a random UUID, which is consistent with annotations.
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 words long, immediately front-loaded with the core purpose. Every word earns its place with zero 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?
For a zero-parameter tool with an output schema, the description conveys exactly what the tool does. No additional information is necessary for correct 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?
Tool has zero parameters, so schema coverage is 100%. Description 'Random UUID' succinctly conveys what the tool outputs. Baseline for 0 parameters is 4, and description is adequate.
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?
Description 'Random UUID.' explicitly states the tool generates a random UUID, which is a specific verb+resource. It is clear and distinguishable from sibling tools, none of which are UUID-related.
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description provides no context for decision-making, such as when UUID generation is appropriate.
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.