Kiprio MCP

generate_uuid

Generate standards-compliant UUIDs (v1, v4, v7) for database keys, idempotency tokens, session identifiers, or correlation IDs.

Instructions

Generate a universally unique identifier (UUID).

Produces standards-compliant UUIDs suitable for use as database primary
keys, idempotency tokens, session identifiers, or correlation IDs.

Args:
    version: UUID version to generate:
        1: Time-based UUID (includes MAC address and timestamp).
           Ordered by creation time, useful for time-sortable IDs.
        4 (default): Random UUID (122 bits of entropy).
           Most widely used; suitable for general-purpose IDs.
        7: Unix-time-based UUID (RFC 9562). Monotonically increasing,
           better database index locality than v4, newer standard.

Returns:
    uuid: The generated UUID string (standard hyphenated format).
    version: UUID version that was generated.
    format: Always 'xxxxxxxx-xxxx-xxxx-xxxx-xxxxxxxxxxxx'.

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": "generate_uuid"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`version`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Addedv0.3.5Jul 28, 2026

TDQS

A4.8/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Describes standards compliance, entropy, and ordering characteristics. No annotations provided, so description carries full burden, which it meets well. Slight gap: does not mention if v1 includes MAC address exposure.

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?

Three concise sections (purpose, args, returns) with clear formatting. Every sentence adds value; no fluff.

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?

Tool is simple (1 param, no output schema), and description covers purpose, parameter semantics, and return value structure comprehensively.

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

Parameters5/5

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

Despite 0% schema coverage, the description fully details the single parameter `version` with meanings, default, and trade-offs for each option.

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 UUIDs and lists multiple use cases (database keys, idempotency tokens, etc.), distinguishing it from sibling tools like validate_email or dns_lookup.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Provides explicit guidance on when to use each UUID version: v1 for time-sortable IDs, v4 for general-purpose, v7 for monotonic ordering and better database index locality.

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