Microapp

passphrase-generator

Read-onlyIdempotent

Assemble a Diceware-style passphrase from a list of words. Returns the joined string, the word count, and an entropy estimate in bits.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`digit`	No	Optional decimal digit (0–9) appended to the end of the passphrase. Omit to skip the digit.
`words`	Yes	The words to assemble into the passphrase, in order. Pick at least 2, at most 20. Each word must be non-empty.
`separator`	Yes	Character placed between words. One of '-' (hyphen), '_' (underscore), ' ' (space), or '.' (dot).
`capitalize`	Yes	When true, the first letter of each word is uppercased. When false, words are left as-is.
`dictionarySize`	Yes	Size of the wordlist the caller picked from. Used to compute entropy bits. Defaults to 7776 (the EFF Long Wordlist). Pass the actual source size if you used a different list.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`strength`	Yes	Coarse strength label based on entropy: <50 weak, 50–69 fair, 70–99 strong, ≥100 very strong.
`wordCount`	Yes	Number of words in the passphrase.
`passphrase`	Yes	The assembled passphrase, ready to copy.
`entropyBits`	Yes	Estimated entropy in bits, computed as log2(dictionarySize) × wordCount. Higher is harder to brute-force.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

AddedMay 21, 2026

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint as safe, so the description's main contribution is disclosing the return payload—'the joined string, the word count, and an entropy estimate in bits.' This adds useful context beyond the annotations without any contradiction.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is two sentences: the first states the primary action, the second summarizes the output. No wasted words, no repetition of schema or annotation content. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and efficiently structured.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given full schema coverage, strong annotations, and an output schema, the description only needs to provide a high-level summary. It successfully communicates what the tool does and what it returns, which is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke it correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% with detailed descriptions for all five parameters. The tool description adds no new parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides; for example, dictionarySize's role in entropy is already documented in the schema. The baseline of 3 applies because the schema carries the full load.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's function: 'Assemble a Diceware-style passphrase from a list of words.' The verb 'Assemble' and the specific resource ('Diceware-style passphrase') define a unique purpose that distinguishes it from siblings like password-generator. It also mentions the return values, further clarifying scope.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies when to use the tool (when you have a list of words to assemble into a passphrase), but it does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives such as password-generator, and it offers no exclusions or alternative recommendations. Usage guidance remains implicit rather than direct.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All Microapp tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Disambiguation4/5

Most tools have distinct purposes. However, 'hex-to-rgb' is redundant with 'color-converter', which already handles hex-to-RGB conversion, causing potential confusion.

Naming Consistency4/5

Names follow a consistent lowercase-with-hyphens style, but vary in pattern (e.g., 'angle-converter', 'average-calculator', 'dedup-lines'). One tool ('internal-do-not-call') deviates from the descriptive norm.

Tool Count2/5

With 46 tools, the server is heavily populated. Many converters could be merged into a generic unit converter, and there is redundancy, making the surface unnecessarily large for a single server.

Completeness4/5

The server covers a broad range of utility domains: converters, text processing, math, cryptography, etc. Minor redundancies exist (e.g., hex-to-rgb vs color-converter), but the set is otherwise comprehensive.

Resources

Need Help?