generate_ulidGenerate one or more ULIDs (time-sortable unique IDs). Each is a 26-char Crockford Base32 string whose first 10 chars encode the creation time.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| count | No | How many to generate (1-100, default 1). |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Input schema / examplesAdded value: +[
+ {
+ "count": 1
+ },
+ {
+ "count": 5
+ }
+]Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate safe, idempotent, read-only behavior. The description adds useful behavioral context about the output format (Crockford Base32, 26 chars, time-encoded), which goes beyond the annotations without contradiction.
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 sentences with no filler. The first sentence states the action and resource, the second adds key format details. Every word earns its place.
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?
Given the simplicity (one optional param, no output schema), the description is mostly complete. It describes input and output format implicitly, but could explicitly state that the return value is an array of strings for clarity.
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% with a clear description of the `count` parameter. The description does not add additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so it meets the baseline.
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 the tool generates ULIDs and explains what a ULID is (26-char Crockford Base32, time-encoded first 10 chars). It distinguishes itself from the sibling `parse_ulid` by focusing on generation.
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 description implies usage for generating unique IDs but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like `parse_ulid` or other generation tools. No exclusions or conditions are mentioned.
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.