generate_genotypeGenerate a synthetic Nigerian genotype to populate test data or development environments with realistic genetic profiles.
Generates a synthetic genotype.
| 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?
The description adds 'synthetic', which clarifies that the output is simulated and not real, a useful behavior beyond the annotations' read-only/non-destructive hints. However, it doesn't describe what calling the tool implies (e.g., no side effects, deterministic vs random), though the lack of parameters and presence of output schema reduce the gap.
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 sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the action and object, and there is no filler or redundancy. Exactly as concise as needed for a parameterless generator.
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 no parameters and an output schema, the description is largely sufficient. The agent knows it generates a synthetic genotype and can rely on the output schema for return structure. The only gap is usage context among siblings, but that is already penalized in usage_guidelines.
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, so the description has no parameter semantics to add. According to the rubric, a zero-parameter tool gets a baseline of 4, and the description is consistent with that. It doesn't interfere with the empty schema.
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 clear verb 'Generates' and a specific resource 'synthetic genotype', so an agent can tell it produces a genotype. It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings, but the resource name is unique among the generate_* tools, so it's identifiable without deeper schema inspection.
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 guidance is given on when to use this tool versus any sibling. With 27 generate_* siblings, an agent gets no hints about selecting this over alternatives like generate_person or generate_blood_group. No exclusions or conditions are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.