Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
FauxGen MCP

FauxGen MCP

by LazyInvestor
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

Generate user agents

generate_user_agent

Create realistic browser user-agent strings for testing, scraping, or compatibility checks. Set count to produce up to 20 unique strings for simulated client requests.

Instructions

Generate realistic browser user-agent strings.

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_user_agent"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
countNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

C2.7/5.0
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 burden. It says nothing about permissions, determinism, output format, or whether the tool fabricates plausible values versus real ones; 'realistic' is the only behavioral hint.

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. It is front-loaded and wastes nothing, though it is under-specified rather than genuinely concise.

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

Completeness2/5

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

For a simple one-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description still omits the essential return shape (single string versus array when count > 1) and the role of count. An agent cannot fully predict the call result.

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% and the single parameter 'count' (min 1, max 20, default 1) is never mentioned in the description. The schema conveys type and bounds but not whether count produces multiple distinct strings, so the description fails to compensate.

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 (browser user-agent strings), which is inherently distinct from the other generate_* siblings producing emails, names, addresses, etc. It does not explicitly name siblings, but the resource alone is unambiguous.

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 tool, when not to, or which sibling to pick for related needs (e.g., full identity generation). Usage must be inferred entirely from the name.

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