MCP Utility Tools

generate_password

Generate cryptographically secure random passwords. Adjust length and symbol usage, and create up to 20 at once for multiple credentials.

Instructions

Generate one or more cryptographically secure random passwords.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "generate_password"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`count`	No	How many passwords to generate, between 1 and 20 (default 1).
`length`	No	Length of each password, between 4 and 128 (default 16).
`use_symbols`	No	Whether to include symbols like !@#$%^&* (default True).

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Aug 11, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It mentions 'cryptographically secure random passwords,' which is a key behavioral trait. However, it does not disclose details like what happens with invalid input or whether output is a single string vs an array, though output schema may cover that.

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?

The description is a single, clear sentence with no unnecessary words. It communicates the core function efficiently.

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?

Given the low complexity, full schema coverage, and presence of an output schema, the description is nearly complete. It lacks explicit usage scenarios, but that is more relevant to the usage guidelines dimension. The tool is simple enough that the description suffices.

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 coverage is 100% with detailed parameter descriptions (count, length, use_symbols). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema, so a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the tool's function: generating one or more cryptographically secure random passwords. The verb 'generate' and resource 'password' are specific, and the description distinguishes it from sibling tools like generate_uuid or hash_text.

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?

The description implies usage context: use when you need random passwords. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is clear given the sibling tools are unrelated. No misleading guidance is present.

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

Deploy Server