Generate a random float between 0 and 1 with uniform distribution. Use this to obtain a pseudorandom number for sampling, simulations, or decision-making.
Return one uniformly distributed random float in [0, 1).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| value | 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 provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states that the result is one float, uniformly distributed, and in [0, 1), which covers the key behavioral traits for a zero-parameter random-number tool.
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, compact sentence with no filler. The essential facts—one, uniformly distributed, float, [0, 1)—are all present and clearly ordered.
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 no-argument tool with an output schema, the description fully covers the behavior an agent needs to select and invoke it correctly. Nothing significant is missing.
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 tool has zero parameters and the input schema confirms an empty properties object. There is no parameter semantics for the description to clarify, so the no-parameter baseline of 4 applies.
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 states a specific verb ('Return') and an exact resource: one uniformly distributed random float in [0, 1). It clearly distinguishes this from siblings like random_interval (range-based) and random_normal (normal distribution) without needing to name 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?
No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided. The half-open [0, 1) uniform distribution strongly implies the use case, but the agent must infer sibling differentiation from the sibling tool names and this description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.