generate_next_of_kinGenerate synthetic Nigerian next-of-kin records for testing or mock data, supporting Hausa, Igbo, and Yoruba languages and gender selection.
Generates a synthetic next-of-kin record.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| gender | No | ||
| language | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| value | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.0.0Input schema / properties / gender / descriptionRemoved value: -"The gender of the next of kin. The accepted gender values are male and female"Input schema / properties / gender / enumAdded value: +[
+ "male",
+ "female"
+]Input schema / properties / language / descriptionRemoved value: -"The language of the next of kin. The available languages are Hausa, Igbo and Yoruba"Input schema / properties / language / enumAdded value: +[
+ "hausa",
+ "igbo",
+ "yoruba"
+]Output 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 annotations supply readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the word 'synthetic' adds the important context that the data is fabricated and not real. The description does not elaborate on randomness, optional-parameter effects, or any generation constraints, but for a safe read-only generator this is adequate.
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 that wastes no words. It is concise while still containing the key 'synthetic' qualifier.
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 simple generator with zero required parameters and an output schema, the description is minimally sufficient to invoke the tool. However, it lacks any guidance on parameter effect or when to choose it over sibling generators, so it is not fully complete.
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%, and the description says nothing about how gender or language affect the generated next-of-kin record. The parameter names and enum values are self-explanatory, but the description fails to compensate for the schema's lack of descriptions.
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 specific action ('Generates') and a distinct resource ('synthetic next-of-kin record'), so an agent can tell this apart from the many person/name generators. It is clear, though it does not explicitly contrast it with siblings such as generate_person or generate_detailed_person.
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 when-to-use guidance, no mention of alternatives, and no conditions for choosing this tool over related generators. An agent gets no help deciding between this and generate_person/consistent_person options.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.