generate_marital_statusGenerates a synthetic marital status for Nigerian fake data, enabling realistic testing without real personal information.
Generates a synthetic marital status.
| 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 the useful qualifier 'synthetic', and annotations already indicate read-only, non-destructive, closed-world behavior. It does not describe randomness or independence from other generated attributes, but for a stateless zero-parameter generator this is a minor omission.
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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. For a trivial no-parameter generator, this length is appropriate and every word contributes to the meaning.
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?
Given the zero-parameter signature, read-only annotations, and output schema, the description is largely sufficient for an agent to invoke the tool correctly. It could mention available marital-status values, but the structured metadata fills most critical gaps.
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 parametersaine and the schema confirms this with 100% coverage. The description correctly implies no inputs are needed, which satisfies the baseline for a parameterless tool.
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 clearly states that the tool 'generates' a 'synthetic marital status', giving a specific verb and resource. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling generators like generate_person that may produce marital status as part of a larger entity, but the core purpose is unmistakable.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as generate_person or generate_consistent_person, nor is there clarification that this produces a single field rather than a full record. Usage context is only implied by the tool name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.