generate_addressCreate realistic synthetic Nigerian addresses to populate test data, demos, or mockups without exposing real location information.
Generates a synthetic Nigerian address.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| value | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.0.0Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "$schema": "http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#",
+ "additionalProperties": false,
+ "properties": {
+ "value": {}
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "value"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+}v1.0.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description does not contradict them. It adds the detail that the output is synthetic, but it does not disclose further behavioral traits such as randomness or format variance; the output schema covers return-value shape.
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 sentence saying 'Generates a synthetic Nigerian address' is concise, front-loaded, and contains no filler. Every word adds information beyond the title.
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 parameterless generator with full annotation coverage and an output schema, this description is sufficient. An agent knows what to invoke it for and can rely on the output schema for return shape.
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 has zero parameters and 100% description coverage, so there are no parameters whose semantics need explanation. The baseline of 4 applies, and the description offers the useful country constraint even though no parameter controls it.
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 the verb 'generates' and a specific resource: a synthetic Nigerian address. This clearly identifies what the tool does and distinguishes it from sibling tools that generate persons, bank accounts, or vehicle records.
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 the tool is for producing a fake Nigerian address when such data is needed, but it gives no explicit when-to-use guidance or alternatives. With zero parameters and a self-explanatory purpose, this implied usage is acceptable but not explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.