Generate a UUID (version 4 or 7) to serve as a unique identifier.
Generate a UUID (v4 or v7).
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": "tool_uuid_generate"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| version | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It correctly implies a stateless generator with no destructive side effects and it names the v4/v7 variants. However, it does not explain behavioral differences such as v4 randomness versus v7 time-ordering, or whether the output is canonical lowercase hyphenated.
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?
The description is a single sentence with no filler: it front-loads the action 'Generate' and then states the relevant variant scope. Every word earns its place.
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?
For a low-complexity, one-parameter, side-effect-free generator with an output schema, this description is nearly complete: it identifies the operation, the valid version variants, and the schema supplies the default. The remaining gaps are version semantics and explicit usage guidance, but those are minor for this simple tool.
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?
The schema only provides 'integer version with default 4' and no description. The phrase '(v4 or v7)' adds meaning by implying the accepted version values, but it never explicitly connects that phrase to the 'version' parameter or explains the difference between versions. This partially compensates for the 0% schema description coverage.
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?
The description uses the specific verb 'Generate' and names the resource 'UUID', then narrows the scope to v4 or v7. This makes the tool's function immediately unambiguous, and none of the sibling tools overlap with UUID generation.
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 description provides no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as hash_generate or slug_generate, and gives no exclusions or selection criteria. Usage must be inferred entirely from the tool name and the one-line description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.