Everyday DevTools MCP

uuid_generate

Generate random UUID v4 values in batches of up to 100. Create unique identifiers for database keys, test data, or API requests without external services.

Instructions

Generate one or more random UUID v4 values.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "uuid_generate"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`count`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Nov 9, 2026

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the meaningful behavioral trait that values are random and version-4 UUIDs, which tells an agent about uniqueness guarantees, but it is silent on randomness quality (cryptographic vs not), value formatting, and whether results are unique within a batch.

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?

One short sentence with the key qualifier (v4, random, one or more) front-loaded and no filler. Nothing is wasted or buried.

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

Completeness3/5

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

This is a low-complexity utility tool with no output schema, so the description need not enumerate return values, but since it can return multiple values the shape of a multi-UUID result (array vs delimited string) is left unspecified. Adequate but with a real gap for the multi-value case.

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 0% and the single parameter 'count' is undocumented in the schema beyond type, default, and bounds. The phrase 'one or more' loosely corroborates the count parameter, but the description never mentions the maximum of 100 or the default of 1, so it only partially compensates for the coverage gap.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description states a specific verb and resource ('Generate ... random UUID v4 values'), which is unambiguous and clearly distinct from siblings like hash_text or password_generate. It does not explicitly name an alternative or sibling, which keeps it just short of a 5.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is for obtaining random identifiers, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. It also does not contrast itself with related sibling tools such as password_generate, which also produce random strings.

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

Deploy Server