Generate UUID identifiers in v4 (random) or v7 (time-sorted) formats. Create up to 50 UUIDs at once for unique identifiers.
Generate UUID identifiers. Supports v4 (random) and v7 (time-sorted). Bulk generation up to 50 at once.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| count | No | Number of UUIDs to generate (default: 1, max: 50) | |
| version | No | UUID version: "v4" (random, default) or "v7" (time-sorted) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.4.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already mark this as read-only, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral details beyond annotations: version semantics (v4 random, v7 time-sorted) and an explicit bulk limit of 50. It does not describe the output shape, but the core behavior is transparent.
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 sentences with no filler. The core purpose is front-loaded, followed by version support and the bulk limit. Every sentence carries useful information.
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?
The tool is simple, has no required parameters, full schema coverage, and readOnly annotations. The description covers versions and count limits. The only notable gap is the unspecified return shape for bulk generation (single string vs array), but the tool is still understandable enough to invoke correctly.
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 coverage is 100%, so parameters are already documented. The description adds extra meaning by explaining that v4 is 'random' and v7 is 'time-sorted,' and by confirming bulk generation up to 50. This goes beyond the schema defaults and helps an agent pick the right parameter values.
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 clearly states the verb and resource: 'Generate UUID identifiers.' It also differentiates itself by specifying supported versions (v4 and v7) and bulk generation, which distinguishes it from sibling generation tools like generate_hash or generate_password.
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 implies usage by saying it generates UUID identifiers and notes when to choose v4 vs v7, but it does not explicitly mention when to prefer this tool over alternatives or when not to use it. There is no exclusion or comparison with sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.