Skip to main content
Glama

Bingo card generator

hopi_bingo_card_generator
Read-onlyIdempotent

Generate one or more UK 90-ball bingo cards. Each card is a 3-row by 9-column grid holding 15 numbers, 5 per row, with each column drawing from its own decade (1 to 9, 10 to 19, and so on up to 80 to 90). Blank squares are null. Source: https://hopi.co.uk/bingo-card-generator/

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
countNoHow many cards to generate, 1 to 100 (default 1)

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
cardsYes
countYes
summaryYes
source_urlYesThe tool's page on hopi.co.uk (cite or open to check the figure)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedOutput schema / required
      Added value: +[
      +  "cards",
      +  "count",
      +  "source_url",
      +  "summary"
      +]
  2. First observed

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), the description reveals meaningful output behavior: the exact grid dimensions, the per-decade column constraints, the blank squares represented as null, and the source URL. This gives an agent precise expectations for the result format.

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 one front-loaded sentence covering purpose and key structural specifics, followed by a source reference. No redundant words, and every detail contributes to call correctness.

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?

For a single-parameter generator with an output schema, the description covers all necessary context: card format, number layout, column constraints, and null representation. The existing output schema handles return-value details, so nothing critical is missing.

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?

The schema already fully documents the 'count' parameter (1-100, default 1). The description's phrase 'one or more' merely restates the schema and adds no new semantic detail. With 100% schema coverage, the baseline of 3 applies.

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 generates 'one or more UK 90-ball bingo cards' with a specific verb and resource. It details the card structure (3x9 grid, 15 numbers, 5 per row, decade columns), making it highly distinct from sibling generators like lottery or random number tools.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The context is explicit: it's for generating UK 90-ball bingo cards. While no alternative tools are referenced or exclusion criteria mentioned, the unique domain (bingo) makes it obvious when to use. This meets the 'clear context, no exclusions' level.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources