naija-faker-mcp

Generate a fake person

generate_person

Read-only

Create a synthetic Nigerian person record with identity and contact fields. Optionally specify language (Hausa, Igbo, Yoruba) and gender to get tailored fake data for testing or development.

Instructions

Generates one basic composite person record with identity and contact fields. Use atomic tools when you need only one attribute. Accepts optional language (hausa, igbo, or yoruba) and gender (male or female). Returns one synthetic object.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`gender`	No	The person's gender
`language`	No	The person's language

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`email`	Yes
`phone`	Yes
`title`	Yes
`address`	Yes
`fullName`	Yes
`lastName`	Yes
`firstName`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed5 schema fields changedv2.0.0Sep 16, 2026

changedInput schema / properties / gender / description

Previous value: -"The gender of the person data. The accepted gender values are male and female"New value: +"The person's gender"

addedInput schema / properties / gender / enum
```
Added value: +[
+  "male",
+  "female"
+]
```

changedInput schema / properties / language / description

Previous value: -"The language of the person data. The available languages are Hausa, Igbo and Yoruba"New value: +"The person's language"

addedInput schema / properties / language / enum

Added value: +[
+  "hausa",
+  "igbo",
+  "yoruba"
+]

changedOutput schema / (root)

Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "$schema": "http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#",
+  "additionalProperties": false,
+  "properties": {
+    "address": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "email": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "firstName": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "fullName": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "lastName": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "phone": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "title": {
+      "type": "string"
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "title",
+    "firstName",
+    "lastName",
+    "fullName",
+    "email",
+    "phone",
+    "address"
+  ],
+  "type": "object"
+}

First observedv1.0.1Sep 13, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering safety. The description adds that it returns 'one synthetic object' and is a 'composite' record, but doesn't disclose edge cases or any additional behavioral nuances. It adds modest context beyond the annotations, hence a 3.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two sentences with zero fluff; the core function and the key usage caveat are front-loaded. Every clause adds value, and the structure is efficient.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The tool has an output schema (not shown but indicated), so return structure is covered elsewhere. The description covers the purpose, parameters, and usage distinction sufficiently for a basic composite generator. Minor gap: it doesn't hint at the specific identity/contact fields returned, but the output schema fills that.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100% and both parameters have enums and descriptions. The description repeats the parameter options ('language (hausa, igbo, or yoruba) and gender (male or female)') without adding new meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a clear verb ('generates') and resource ('one basic composite person record with identity and contact fields'), and explicitly contrasts with atomic tools, distinguishing it from siblings like generate_name or generate_email. It also implies a scope difference from detailed_person via 'basic composite'.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It gives explicit guidance: 'Use atomic tools when you need only one attribute,' which routes the agent away from composite generation. However, it does not explicitly address when to choose this over generate_people or generate_detailed_person, leaving some ambiguity among composite siblings.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.