Create mock data from JSON Schema or OpenAPI definitions for testing and development, with optional count to generate multiple objects.
Generate mock data based on a JSON schema or OpenAPI schema definition. Useful for testing and development.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| count | No | Number of mock objects to generate (default: 1) | |
| schema | Yes | JSON Schema or OpenAPI schema object |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it discloses nothing about determinism (are repeated runs identical?), whether output is written anywhere or purely returned, or how nested/complex schema features are handled. For a tool taking a nested-object schema parameter, that is a meaningful gap.
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 the core capability front-loaded. The second sentence is mild filler but does not obscure the purpose, so size is appropriate.
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?
A two-parameter tool with no output schema, so the description should convey at least the shape of what comes back (e.g., an array of count objects). It is minimally viable but leaves return format and nested-schema handling unstated.
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 100%, so both `count` (with default) and `schema` are already documented in the schema. The description only restates that the input may be a JSON Schema or OpenAPI schema, adding no format, version, or constraint detail beyond the schema itself.
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) and resource (mock data) plus the input domain (JSON Schema or OpenAPI schema definition). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like generate_sdk or parse_openapi, but it never explicitly names or contrasts with them.
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?
"Useful for testing and development" is a generic audience statement, not guidance. It does not say when to prefer this over batch_test_endpoints or generate_sdk, nor does it state any prerequisite (e.g., that a schema must already be parsed or valid).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.