Create random UUID v4 identifiers for local use. Specify a count to produce multiple values at once, up to 100.
Generate one or more random UUID v4 values
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| count | No | How many UUIDs to generate, default 1 |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
There are no annotations, so the description carries the behavioral burden itself. It meaningfully discloses that values are random, that UUID v4 is the format, and that count can produce more than one value. It does not describe the exact output shape, but for a pure generator this is enough to avoid most attribution errors.
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 short sentence with no filler. It front-loads the purpose, then defines the only meaningful variation (one or more). No sentence is wasted.
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 tool with one optional parameter, no required inputs, and no nested schema, the description is nearly complete. It establishes the operation, randomness, format, and multiplicity. Its main gap is not explicitly stating the return representation for multi-UUID results, but this is a minor issue for a utility of this simplicity.
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% and only one optional parameter exists. The description's 'one or more' phrase reinforces the count parameter, but adds little beyond what the schema already states about default and minimum. The schema is doing the heavy lifting, so the baseline of 3 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 names a specific action (generate), a specific resource (UUID v4 values), and a multiplicity (one or more). This clearly distinguishes the tool from all listed sibling utility/formula tools, none of which generate UUIDs.
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/when-not guidance is given, but the usage context is unambiguous: call this tool when random UUID v4 values are needed. There are no close sibling alternatives requiring exclusionary guidance. The one clear context is sufficient for this simple utility.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.