generate_titleCreates a synthetic Nigerian title based on gender, providing authentic honorifics for fake profiles and test data.
Generates a synthetic Nigerian title.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| gender | 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 title data. The accepted gender values are male and female"Input schema / properties / gender / enumAdded value: +[
+ "male",
+ "female"
+]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?
Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description doesn't need to repeat those. The description adds the Nigerian cultural context (which is helpful) but doesn't disclose output format or any conditional behavior (e.g., whether gender affects the title). With annotations covering the safety profile, the description adds minimal extra behavioral context.
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, concise and to the point. It provides the core purpose without any fluff, making it easy to parse.
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 tool has only one optional parameter and an output schema (which likely defines the title format), the description is relatively complete for a simple generation tool. However, it could benefit from specifying the cultural scope (Nigerian) and how gender is used, but the output schema mitigates the need to explain return values.
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 one optional parameter 'gender' with enum values, and schema coverage is 0%. The description does not explain that 'gender' controls title variation (e.g., male vs. female titles). While the enum values are self-explanatory, the description fails to clarify how gender affects the generated title, leaving the agent to infer from common knowledge.
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 'Generates a synthetic Nigerian title' clearly states the verb (generates) and resource (Nigerian title), making the tool's purpose clear. It distinguishes from siblings like generate_name, which generates a full name, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with generate_name.
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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like generate_name or generate_person. The description does not mention that generate_title might be used for title-only generation, nor does it note any constraints (e.g., gender-based). Context implies standalone title generation, but no explicit usage context or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.