generate_uuidProduces random version 4 UUIDs, with a configurable count up to 50, to create unique identifiers for records, test data, or application workflows.
Generate random version 4 UUIDs.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| count | 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, notably, idempotentHint=false, which matches the description's 'random' claim. The description confirms randomness and RFC-4122 version 4 format, but says nothing about whether repeated calls differ or how output is shaped — modest added value over annotations.
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 six-word sentence with the key qualifier (version 4) up front and zero filler. Nothing to trim and nothing buried.
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?
No output schema exists, so the description should say whether a single UUID string or a list is returned, especially given a count parameter — that gap is real. For a trivial utility the description is otherwise adequate, but it leaves the batch/multi-value behavior undocumented.
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% and the only parameter, 'count', is never mentioned in the description. An agent cannot learn from the text that batching is supported (up to 50 per call) or what count=1 returns; it must read the schema's min/max/default to infer this.
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 ('Generate'), an exact resource ('UUIDs'), and even the version (v4), so the agent knows precisely what comes back. It does not need to contrast with the sibling generate_password/generate_qr_code tools since the resource noun already disambiguates.
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?
The intent of a UUID generator is self-evident, so usage is implied rather than stated. There is no explicit when-not guidance (e.g. use generate_password for secrets, use this for identifiers), but for a single-purpose utility the omission is minor.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.