Skip to main content
Glama
LazyInvestor

FauxGen MCP

by LazyInvestor
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

Generate fake phone

generate_phone

Generate fictional phone numbers by country in national and international formats for testing, QA, and mock datasets.

Instructions

Generate a phone number for a country (national + international).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
countryNoISO country code used on fauxgen.com. One of: us, gb, ca, au, nz, ie, in, pk, ng, za, gh, np, hk, ph, de, at, ch, fr, be, lu, es, mx, pt, br, it, nl, ru, by, kz, ua, pl, cz, sk, hu, ro, md, gr, tr, hr, si, rs, mk, bg, my, sg, se, no, dk, fi, lv, il, ae, sa, eg, ir, am, ge, az, jp, kr, cn, tw, th, vn, id, snus

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Behavior3/5

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 usefully discloses that both national and international formats are returned, but says nothing about randomness, determinism, or that the default is US when country is omitted. For a stateless fake-data generator the risk surface is small, so this is adequate rather than rich.

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?

One compact sentence with the resource and output formats front-loaded; nothing is wasted. It is terse to the point of omitting useful detail, but there is no padding or redundancy.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a single-optional-parameter generator with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essential contract. The main missing piece is the default-to-US behavior when country is omitted, which the schema does state via the default value.

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 100% and the single country parameter is fully documented in the schema, including the enum of supported ISO codes. The description's phrase 'for a country' adds only a thin layer over that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 a phone number') and even names the two output formats (national + international), which is more than a bare restatement. It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings, but the resource noun makes it distinct from generate_email, generate_address, etc.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no mention of the country default behavior, and no prerequisites or exclusions. Usage is only inferable from the tool name and the sibling set.

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