Create up to 50 rows of synthetic Faker data from a view name or file ID, enabling reliable tests and script development without using real records.
ビュー名またはファイル id と同じ形の合成データ（Faker）を n 行返す。テストやスクリプト開発用。
Args:
source: claude スキーマのビュー名、または files_describe の id。
n: 行数（最大 50）。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| n | No | ||
| source | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
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 burden. It does disclose a real constraint (n is capped at 50) and the generation mechanism (Faker), which is useful beyond the schema. It says nothing about side effects, permissions, or what happens on an invalid source, so coverage is only partial.
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 plus a tight Args block; the core behavior and the testing purpose are front-loaded with zero filler. Every line 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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and both parameters are documented. What remains thin is error/edge behavior (invalid source, exceeding the cap) and confirmation of the read-only, side-effect-free nature of a generator.
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 0%, so the description must compensate and largely does: it defines 'source' as either a claude schema view name or a files_describe id, and 'n' as the row count with a 50-row maximum. It adds meaningful semantics the bare schema (string/integer) lacks, though it omits the default of 5 that the schema carries.
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 and resource: returns n rows of synthetic Faker data matching the shape of a given view or file id. The shape-matching behavior is distinctive and lets an agent distinguish it from siblings like sql_run or py_run, though it never explicitly names an alternative tool.
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 phrase 'for tests and script development' gives a clear use context, so usage is implied rather than left blank. However, there is no when-not guidance and no explicit routing to schema_describe or files_describe even though those tools produce the 'source' inputs.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.