generate_passwordCreate random passwords with configurable length and optional uppercase, digits, and symbols for testing, account setup, or mock data.
Generate a random password with configurable character sets.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| upper | No | ||
| digits | No | ||
| length | No | ||
| symbols | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full load; it discloses the core trait (output is random) and that character composition is configurable. It does not say whether randomness is cryptographically secure, whether generation is deterministic/seedable, or that it has no side effects or persistence.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single efficient sentence with the action front-loaded and no filler. It is lean to the point of omitting useful detail, but nothing is wasted.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a 4-parameter tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage, the description is too thin. It omits length/format behavior and the security properties of the generated value that an agent would need to call and trust it.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. "Configurable character sets" maps conceptually onto the upper/digits/symbols booleans, but the length parameter and its 6-128 range/defaults are left entirely to the schema and undocumented in prose.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific verb and resource ("Generate a ... password") and adds the configurable scope. It is easy to distinguish from siblings like generate_uuid or generate_username by resource, though it offers no explicit sibling routing.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. The agent must infer from the name alone that this is for creating credentials rather than, say, hashing or validating passwords.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.