generate_passwordGenerate random passwords with a cryptographically secure generator, with each chosen character set guaranteed to appear at least once.
Generate random passwords with a cryptographically secure generator. Each chosen character set appears at least once.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| count | No | ||
| length | No | ||
| numbers | No | ||
| symbols | No | ||
| lowercase | No | ||
| uppercase | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: the generator is cryptographically secure, and every selected character set is guaranteed to appear at least once. It stops short of covering output shape (single string vs. list of `count` passwords).
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?
Two short sentences with zero filler; the mechanism and the per-set guarantee are both front-loaded. Nothing repeats the title or name.
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?
With 6 undocumented parameters, no output schema, and counts up to 20 passwords per call, an agent still cannot tell what the return value looks like or how count/length interact. The description covers the security and composition guarantees but leaves the parameter surface and output shape unaddressed.
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% across 6 parameters, so the description must carry the load, but it only implicitly gestures at the character-set booleans ('each chosen character set') and says nothing about count, length, defaults, or their bounds. Two of six parameters are hintable at best; the rest have no semantic help anywhere.
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 random passwords') plus the mechanism ('cryptographically secure generator'), which cleanly separates it from siblings like generate_uuid and hash_text. An agent can identify the tool's job without opening the schema.
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?
Usage is implied by the tool name and the security qualifier, and the sibling set is dissimilar enough that misrouting is unlikely. However, there is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over a sibling or any exclusions, so guidance is inferred rather than stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.