Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
FauxGen MCP

FauxGen MCP

by LazyInvestor
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

Generate IP addresses

generate_ip

Generate random IPv4 or IPv6 addresses for testing, seeding, or fake network data. Specify version and count up to 50 to create sample IPs.

Instructions

Generate random IPv4 / IPv6 addresses.

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_ip"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
countNo
versionNov4

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

C2.8/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It says values are random, but omits that generation is read-only/pure, that count is capped at 50, and what the output shape is (single value vs. list). For a no-annotation tool this is thin.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

A single tight sentence with no filler and the core action front-loaded. It is arguably under-specified rather than verbose, which is a separate dimension.

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?

The tool is simple, has no output schema and no nested objects, so a short description is defensible. Still, it should note the count/isolation behavior and output format for an agent to call it confidently with non-default parameters.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0% with two parameters. The description's mention of IPv4/IPv6 loosely maps to the 'version' enum but doesn't explain the 'both' option, and says nothing about 'count', its default of 1, or the maximum of 50 — the schema supplies types but no prose meanings.

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?

States a specific verb (generate) and resource (random IPv4/IPv6 addresses), so the agent knows exactly what comes back. It isn't differentiated from siblings in text, but the resource is distinct from generate_mac / generate_uuid / generate_email, so confusion risk is low.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

No guidance on when to use this versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites. The one-line description leaves usage entirely to inference from the name and sibling list.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools