Skip to main content
Glama
mitchallen

random-mcp-server

by mitchallen

random-mcp-server

GitHub tag Docker Hub Docker image size Docker pulls test bdd image-scan

An MCP server that returns random JSON things — people, words, values, coordinates, and an always-empty list. It is a Python / FastMCP adaptation of the Node/Express random-server REST API: each REST route family becomes an MCP tool.

Built with Python, uv, FastMCP, and make.


How the REST API maps to MCP

The REST server seeds a fixed pool of records when it starts and serves them at /v1/<kind>, /v1/<kind>/count, and /v1/<kind>/:id. This server does the same, exposing the pool through a small set of tools parameterized by kind (people, words, values, coords, empty):

REST route

MCP tool

GET /

server_info()

GET /v1/<kind>

list_records(kind, count?)

GET /v1/<kind>/count

count_records(kind)

GET /v1/<kind>/:id

get_record(kind, id) (1-based)

(restart to reseed)

regenerate(seed?)opt-in

Records are seeded at start-up, so a given id is stable until you call regenerate. Pass a fixed seed (tool arg or RANDOM_SEED) for reproducible data.

The regenerate tool is disabled by default — see The regenerate tool is opt-in.

Differences from random-server

  • No x-api-key auth. The REST server's optional API_KEY guard on /v1 routes is not ported — MCP transports handle authentication differently (add FastMCP auth if a networked deployment needs it). The APP_NAME, seeding, and per-kind count behavior are preserved.

  • No Swagger UI. The /api-docs explorer has no MCP equivalent; tool schemas are discoverable through the MCP protocol itself (e.g. make dev).

Example records

// get_record(kind="people", id=1)
{ "type": "people", "prefix": "Mr.", "first": "Augustus", "last": "Gomez",
  "age": 42, "birthday": "7/8/1959", "gender": "male", "zip": "74948-0928",
  "ssnFour": "0791", "phone": "(509) 504-8066", "email": "zeti@tipe.cv" }

// get_record(kind="words", id=1)   -> { "type": "words", "value": "cezuwdi" }
// get_record(kind="values", id=1)  -> { "type": "values", "name": "dafe", "value": -415365907192.2176 }
// get_record(kind="coords", id=1)  -> { "type": "coords", "latitude": 88.43647, "longitude": -93.31203 }

Related MCP server: unique-id-generator

Determinism & idempotency of records

Each server process builds one pool of records per kind when it starts, then serves that pool for the life of the process. What stays stable and what changes follows from that:

  • Within a running instance, records are idempotent. For as long as the process is up, get_record(kind, id) returns the same record, and list_records returns the same pool in the same order. Ask for person 1 today and it's identical on the next call — until the pool is rebuilt (below).

  • A reboot/restart reshuffles — unless you pin a seed. With no RANDOM_SEED set, the factory picks a random seed at start-up, so restarting the server (or launching a fresh container) yields a different pool. Set RANDOM_SEED to a fixed value and every restart rebuilds the same pool, so records survive reboots.

  • A shared instance shows everyone the same records. The pool lives in the process's memory, so all clients connected to the same long-running instance (Option B / C) see the same records — no seed required for them to agree, because they're reading one shared pool. Two separate unseeded instances (or two people each running their own) will not match unless both pin the same RANDOM_SEED.

  • Client-launched stdio gets a fresh pool per session. When a client starts the server itself (local dev or Docker/stdio, Option A), each session is its own process with its own start-up seed. Unseeded, those sessions won't agree with each other; set RANDOM_SEED to make them line up.

  • regenerate rebuilds the shared pool for everyone on that instance. regenerate(seed=N) is reproducible (same seed → same pool); regenerate() with no argument picks a new random seed. Either way it mutates the shared state, so on a multi-client instance it changes the records every other connected client sees too. Because of that it is disabled by default (see below).

  • server_info reports the active seed. Capture that value and feed it back via RANDOM_SEED (at start-up) or regenerate(seed=…) to reproduce a pool you liked later.

Scenario

Same records?

Same instance, repeated calls, no restart

✅ Yes

Same long-running instance, different clients

✅ Yes

After a restart / new container, no RANDOM_SEED

❌ No (reshuffled)

After a restart / new container, fixed RANDOM_SEED

✅ Yes

Two separate unseeded instances

❌ No

Two instances, both pinned to the same RANDOM_SEED

✅ Yes

After regenerate() (no seed)

❌ No (reshuffled)

After regenerate(seed=N) with a seed you used before

✅ Yes

The two regenerate rows assume ALLOW_REGENERATE is set; otherwise the tool is unavailable (opt-in) and only a restart rebuilds the pool.

The regenerate tool is opt-in

Because regenerate reseeds the one shared pool the whole process serves, on a multi-user instance a single caller can reshuffle the records out from under everyone else — no isolation, last-writer-wins. To prevent that, the tool is disabled by default: when ALLOW_REGENERATE is unset the tool is not registered at all, so it doesn't appear in the tool list and can't be called (server_info reports "allow_regenerate": false).

Enable it only where reseeding is safe:

ALLOW_REGENERATE=1 make run        # single-user stdio
docker run --rm -p 8000:8000 -e ALLOW_REGENERATE=1 ghcr.io/mitchallen/random-mcp-server:latest

Guidance by deployment shape:

  • Shared long-running instance (Option B / C) — leave it off. Pin RANDOM_SEED if you need a specific reproducible pool, and treat the data as read-only. This is why the Docker image (which defaults to shared HTTP) ships with regenerate off.

  • Per-session / single-user (client-launched stdio or local dev) — each client gets its own process, so reseeding only affects that caller. Safe to set ALLOW_REGENERATE=1.


Quick start

Requires uv.

make install     # create .venv and sync deps
make test        # run the test suite
make run         # run the server over stdio

make help lists every target.


Running the server

stdio (default — for MCP clients that launch the server)

uv run random-mcp-server
# or
make run

Streamable HTTP (for networked clients / containers)

make run-http            # PORT defaults to 8000
PORT=9000 make run-http

Inspect the server

make inspect             # print a summary: name, version, tool count
make dev                 # launch the interactive FastMCP Inspector (web UI)

Configuration

All configuration is via environment variables:

Variable

Default

Purpose

APP_NAME

random-mcp-server

Name reported by server_info

RANDOM_COUNT

25

Records generated per kind at start-up

RANDOM_SEED

(random)

Fixed seed for reproducible pools

ALLOW_REGENERATE

(off)

Expose the regenerate tool (see below)

MCP_TRANSPORT

stdio

stdio, http, or sse

HOST

127.0.0.1

Bind address for http/sse

PORT

8000

Bind port for http/sse

ALLOW_REGENERATE accepts 1/true/yes/on (case-insensitive) to enable.


Using with an MCP client — local development (from source)

This section is for developers working from a checkout of this repo. It runs the server straight from your local source via uv, so code changes take effect on the next launch. If you only have the Docker image or a remote deployment, skip to Using a published image or a remote server.

Point a stdio-based client (e.g. Claude Desktop, Claude Code) at the console script. Example claude_desktop_config.json entry using uv:

{
  "mcpServers": {
    "random": {
      "command": "uv",
      "args": ["run", "--directory", "/absolute/path/to/random-mcp-server", "random-mcp-server"]
    }
  }
}

With Claude Code:

claude mcp add random -- uv run --directory "$PWD" random-mcp-server

Confirm it's connected with claude mcp list (or /mcp inside a session).

Example prompts (Claude Code)

Once the server is added, just ask in plain language — Claude picks the right tool. The tool it invokes is shown in parentheses.

  • "Is the random server up? What version is it?" → (server_info)

  • "Give me 3 random people." → (list_records with kind="people", count=3)

  • "Show me the first random person." → (get_record with kind="people", id=1)

  • "How many random coordinates are available?" → (count_records with kind="coords")

  • "List all the random words." → (list_records with kind="words")

  • "Grab 5 random coordinates and drop them on a map." → (list_records with kind="coords", count=5)

  • "Reseed the random data with seed 42, then show me person 1." → (regenerate with seed=42, then get_record)

  • "Reshuffle all the random records." → (regenerate)

  • "Get random value number 4." → (get_record with kind="values", id=4)

Handy because records are seeded and stable: ask for a person by id, use it to seed a test fixture, and it stays the same until you ask Claude to reseed. Pass a fixed seed (e.g. "reseed with 42") when you need reproducible data.

The two regenerate prompts only work when the server was started with ALLOW_REGENERATE=1 (the opt-in flag); otherwise the tool isn't exposed and Claude won't have it to call.


Using a published image or a remote server

This section is for consumers who are not building from source — you have the published Docker image, or someone has deployed the server for you. No Python, uv, or checkout required. Pick the option that matches how the server reaches you.

Option A — Docker image, client launches it (stdio)

The client starts a fresh container per session and talks to it over stdio. Use -i (keep stdin open) and force the stdio transport, since the image defaults to HTTP. The image is published to two registries, so pick one:

// GitHub Container Registry (GHCR)
{
  "mcpServers": {
    "random": {
      "command": "docker",
      "args": ["run", "-i", "--rm", "-e", "MCP_TRANSPORT=stdio",
               "ghcr.io/mitchallen/random-mcp-server:latest"]
    }
  }
}
// Docker Hub
{
  "mcpServers": {
    "random": {
      "command": "docker",
      "args": ["run", "-i", "--rm", "-e", "MCP_TRANSPORT=stdio",
               "mitchallen/random-mcp-server:latest"]
    }
  }
}

Claude Code equivalent — again, pick a registry:

# GitHub Container Registry (GHCR)
claude mcp add random -- docker run -i --rm -e MCP_TRANSPORT=stdio ghcr.io/mitchallen/random-mcp-server:latest

# Docker Hub
claude mcp add random -- docker run -i --rm -e MCP_TRANSPORT=stdio mitchallen/random-mcp-server:latest

(Pin a version like :0.1.3 in place of :latest for a reproducible setup.)

Scope — local (default) vs user. claude mcp add registers the server in the current project only. Add --scope user (-s user) to register it once for every project on your machine instead:

# GHCR, available across all your projects
claude mcp add --scope user random -- docker run -i --rm -e MCP_TRANSPORT=stdio ghcr.io/mitchallen/random-mcp-server:latest

# Docker Hub, available across all your projects
claude mcp add --scope user random -- docker run -i --rm -e MCP_TRANSPORT=stdio mitchallen/random-mcp-server:latest

(Scopes are local — this project, the default; project — shared via a checked-in .mcp.json; and user — all your projects.)

Option B — Long-running container over HTTP (local)

Start the container once (it serves HTTP by default) from either registry, then point an HTTP-capable client at it:

# GitHub Container Registry (GHCR)
docker run -d --rm -p 8000:8000 --name random-mcp ghcr.io/mitchallen/random-mcp-server:latest

# Docker Hub
docker run -d --rm -p 8000:8000 --name random-mcp mitchallen/random-mcp-server:latest

Claude Code (native HTTP transport) — the client connects over HTTP, so the command is the same regardless of which registry you pulled from:

claude mcp add --transport http random http://localhost:8000/mcp

Add --scope user (-s user) to register it for every project on your machine instead of just the current one:

claude mcp add --scope user --transport http random http://localhost:8000/mcp

For clients that only speak stdio, bridge to the HTTP endpoint with mcp-remote:

{
  "mcpServers": {
    "random": {
      "command": "npx",
      "args": ["-y", "mcp-remote", "http://localhost:8000/mcp"]
    }
  }
}

Option C — Remote deployment (HTTP)

If the server is hosted elsewhere, use its public URL — everything else matches Option B. There's no image to pull here (the host already runs it, from whichever registry they chose), so registry choice doesn't apply on your side:

claude mcp add --transport http random https://random-mcp.example.com/mcp

Add --scope user (-s user) to register it across all your projects:

claude mcp add --scope user --transport http random https://random-mcp.example.com/mcp
{
  "mcpServers": {
    "random": {
      "command": "npx",
      "args": ["-y", "mcp-remote", "https://random-mcp.example.com/mcp"]
    }
  }
}

Notes for remote use:

  • Prefer HTTPS so traffic (and any auth headers) are encrypted in transit.

  • This server ships no authentication (the REST server's x-api-key guard isn't ported). If you expose it beyond localhost, put it behind a reverse proxy, gateway, or network policy that enforces access — or add FastMCP auth.

  • No built-in rate limiting — by design (see below).

  • The endpoint path is /mcp (no trailing slash). Requesting /mcp/ works too but returns a 307 redirect to /mcp, so point clients at /mcp to skip the extra round-trip.

Why there's no built-in rate limiting

FastMCP ships rate-limiting middleware and it would be a few lines to wire in, but this server deliberately doesn't:

  • Nothing expensive to protect. Every tool is an in-memory lookup against a pool built once at start-up — no database, external API, or real compute cost. Rate limiting shields scarce resources; this workload has none.

  • It only makes sense on the shared HTTP transport. Over stdio each client launches its own process, so throttling your own single-user server is moot.

  • Without auth there's no per-client identity to key on. In-memory limiting would fall back to a global limit, which recreates the shared-instance fairness problem (one noisy client starves everyone) rather than solving it. It also wouldn't coordinate across replicas behind a load balancer.

  • The edge is the right layer. For a public deployment, enforce rate limits at the same reverse proxy / gateway that provides auth and TLS (nginx, Cloudflare, an API gateway) — it coordinates across replicas and can key on authenticated identity. App-level limiting becomes worthwhile mainly once you add auth (so get_client_id is meaningful).

The example prompts above work the same once the server is connected by any of these methods.


Verified client setups

The setups below were exercised against the published image (:0.1.3) with a real client — connect, initialize, list tools, and call a tool — not just assumed. Legend: ✅ connected end-to-end · ☑️ server/endpoint proven, that exact client wiring not run here.

Setup

Transport

How it was verified

Status

Docker image, client-launched (Option A)

stdio

Piped an MCP initialize into docker run -i -e MCP_TRANSPORT=stdio …; got a valid response reporting v0.1.3.

Long-running HTTP container (Option B)

HTTP

FastMCP network client against http://localhost:8000/mcp (listed all 5 tools, called get_record/count_records).

Long-running HTTP container, Claude Code

HTTP

claude mcp add --transport http …claude mcp list reported ✔ Connected.

Local dev, console script (from source)

stdio

Server proven through the in-memory FastMCP client and the test suite; the uv run stdio launch is the same entry point.

☑️

Remote deployment (Option C)

HTTP

Identical to Option B but with a public URL; the HTTP endpoint is proven, a hosted instance was not stood up.

☑️

stdio-only client via mcp-remote bridge

HTTP (bridged)

Documented from standard mcp-remote usage; not run here.

☑️


Docker

Published multi-platform (linux/amd64, linux/arm64) images are available from two registries:

  • GitHub Container Registry: ghcr.io/mitchallen/random-mcp-server

  • Docker Hub: mitchallen/random-mcp-server

The image runs the server over streamable HTTP by default (MCP_TRANSPORT=http, HOST=0.0.0.0, PORT=8000) so it's reachable on a published port.

It's built on a distroless Chainguard/Wolfi Python base — no shell or package manager, runs as a non-root user, and scans 0 known vulnerabilities. Every build is gated by a Trivy scan (fails on fixable CRITICAL/HIGH) and the published :latest is re-scanned daily; see CI / Publish.

Pull the image

docker pull ghcr.io/mitchallen/random-mcp-server:latest
# or from Docker Hub
docker pull mitchallen/random-mcp-server:latest

Both registries also publish version tags (e.g. :0.2.4); prefer a pinned version over :latest for reproducible deployments.

Run the container

docker run --rm -p 8000:8000 --name random-mcp ghcr.io/mitchallen/random-mcp-server:latest

Then connect an HTTP MCP client to http://localhost:8000/mcp.

Test a published release with make

Convenience targets pull and run the published image in your local Docker environment — handy for smoke-testing a release without a local build:

make docker-test               # up + smoke + down in one shot (exits non-zero on failure)

make docker-up                 # pull + run ghcr.io/mitchallen latest, detached
make docker-smoke              # MCP `initialize` handshake — passes if the server responds
make docker-logs               # follow the container logs
make docker-down               # stop it

make docker-up TAG=0.1.1                         # pin a version
make docker-up REGISTRY=docker.io/mitchallen     # pull from Docker Hub instead
make docker-up HTTP_PORT=9000                    # publish on a different host port

Configure at runtime

Pass any of the configuration variables with -e:

docker run --rm -p 9000:9000 \
  -e PORT=9000 \
  -e APP_NAME=my-random \
  -e RANDOM_COUNT=50 \
  -e RANDOM_SEED=42 \
  ghcr.io/mitchallen/random-mcp-server:latest

To run over stdio inside the container instead (e.g. when another process attaches to it), override the transport:

docker run --rm -i -e MCP_TRANSPORT=stdio ghcr.io/mitchallen/random-mcp-server:latest

Build locally

make docker-build        # docker build -t random-mcp-server .
make docker-run          # serves http on localhost:8000

CI / Publish

Two GitHub Actions workflows live in .github/workflows/:

  • test — runs on every push/PR to main: the unit suite (uv sync --frozen then pytest --ignore=tests/test_bdd.py).

  • bdd — runs on every push/PR to main in its own workflow: the pytest-bdd scenarios (pytest tests/test_bdd.py), so they pass or fail and report (and badge) independently of the unit suite.

  • publish — triggered by pushing a v* tag. Builds a multi-platform (linux/amd64, linux/arm64) image and pushes it to the GitHub Container Registry as ghcr.io/mitchallen/random-mcp-server with both the version and latest tags, then runs make docker-test against the just-published image as a post-publish smoke check (the job fails if the released image doesn't answer an MCP initialize). It uses the built-in GITHUB_TOKEN, so no extra secrets are needed.

  • publish-dockerhub — also triggered by a v* tag. Pushes the same multi-platform image to Docker Hub as mitchallen/random-mcp-server, runs the same make docker-test post-publish smoke check against it, and syncs this README to the Docker Hub repo description. Requires two repository secrets and a pre-created Docker Hub repository (see below).

Docker Hub setup

The publish-dockerhub workflow needs:

  1. A Docker Hub repository named mitchallen/random-mcp-server.

  2. Two repository secrets — set them with the GitHub CLI:

    gh secret set DOCKERHUB_USERNAME --repo mitchallen/random-mcp-server
    gh secret set DOCKERHUB_TOKEN    --repo mitchallen/random-mcp-server   # a Docker Hub access token

Until both secrets exist, the publish-dockerhub job will fail on tag pushes while the GHCR publish job continues to work on its own.

To cut a release, use the release target — it bumps version in pyproject.toml (and uv.lock), commits, tags, and pushes, which triggers both publish workflows:

make release              # patch bump (default)
make release BUMP=minor   # or minor / major

The target refuses to run unless the working tree is clean and you're on main. It's equivalent to bumping the version, then git tag vX.Y.Z && git push origin main vX.Y.Z by hand.


Development

  • Source: src/random_mcp_server/

    • generators.py — deterministic, seedable record builders (RandomFactory)

    • server.py — FastMCP tools + entry point (main)

  • Tests: tests/, run with make test (uv run pytest), driven through an in-memory FastMCP client. Two layers:

    • test_generators.py / test_server.py — plain pytest unit tests.

    • test_bdd.py + tests/features/*.feature — a pytest-bdd layer that mirrors random-server's Cucumber features (Gherkin scenarios for each record kind and the server info check), plus scenarios for get_record (by id, stability, out-of-range), count_records, and regenerate (seed reporting and reproducibility). The /v1/<kind> routes map to the list_records / get_record / count_records tools; auth.feature is not mirrored since the x-api-key guard isn't ported.

  • make build produces a wheel/sdist via uv build.

  • Dependencies: uv.lock is committed and the Docker build installs from it with --frozen. Whenever you change dependencies in pyproject.toml, run make lock (or uv lock) to refresh the lockfile and commit it.

FastMCP integration notes

Two non-obvious adjustments were needed so the FastMCP tooling reports the project correctly:

  • Explicit version. FastMCP(...) is constructed with version=APP_VERSION (read from the installed package metadata). Without it, FastMCP falls back to reporting its own framework version in the MCP initialize handshake and in make inspect / fastmcp inspect — so the server would advertise e.g. 3.4.3 instead of the package's 0.1.2.

  • Absolute import in server.py. The module imports its siblings as from random_mcp_server.generators import ... rather than from .generators. The FastMCP CLI (make inspect, fastmcp list/call) loads server.py by path rather than as part of the installed package, and a relative import fails that way with attempted relative import with no known parent package. The absolute form loads correctly both by path and as a package module.


License

MIT © Mitch Allen

Available Tools

4 tools
count_recordsA

Return the number of records available for kind (the /count route).

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
kindYes

Output Schema

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescription

No output parameters

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states the basic operation (returning count) and the route, but omits details such as error handling, performance implications, or any side effects. This leaves agents with limited understanding of the tool's behavior beyond its core function.

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 sentence that conveys the core purpose efficiently. It adheres to front-loading by placing the verb 'Return' at the beginning, and contains no extraneous information.

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?

For a simple counting tool with a single enum parameter and an existing output schema, the description provides sufficient completeness. It identifies the key input and the action, leaving detailed return-value structure to the output schema. However, it could be improved by noting that an invalid 'kind' may cause an error.

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

Parameters2/5

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

The schema has one parameter 'kind' with enum values, but the description does not explain the meaning of each value or provide any additional context. Since schema description coverage is 0%, the description should compensate, but it merely restates the parameter name without enriching its semantics.

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: returning the number of records for a given 'kind', and explicitly mentions the `/count` route. It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like 'list_records' and 'get_record' by focusing on counting rather than fetching data.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided. The context of sibling names implies usage for counting instead of listing or getting records, but the description does not articulate conditions for choosing this tool over alternatives.

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

get_recordA

Return a single record from kind by 1-based id (the /:id route).

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYes
kindYes

Output Schema

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescription

No output parameters

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It implies a read operation, mentions 1-based indexing, but does not disclose auth requirements, error behavior, or confirm it is non-destructive.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is a single concise sentence. The route mention provides context but is slightly redundant.

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 output schema exists, description does not need to cover return values. It covers the core functionality for a simple get operation, though missing error scenarios.

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?

The description adds that id is 1-based, which is not in the schema. But for kind, it only repeats the parameter name. With 0% schema coverage, more detail would be beneficial.

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 'Return a single record' with the specific parameters kind and id. It distinguishes from siblings like list_records which return multiple records, and count_records which returns counts.

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 mentions the 1-based id and the route pattern, implying RESTful usage. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this versus list_records or count_records.

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

list_recordsA

Return the seeded pool of records for kind.

Pass count to cap how many are returned (from the front of the pool); omit it to return the whole pool. empty always returns [].

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
kindYes
countNo

Output Schema

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescription
resultYes

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 must cover behavior. It states the return value and special case for 'empty' kind, but does not disclose idempotency, side effects, or safety. Since it is a read operation, it is adequate but could be more explicit.

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 concise with three sentences, front-loading the purpose. Each sentence adds meaningful information without redundancy.

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 tool's simplicity and presence of an output schema, the description covers core behavior, parameter usage, and the 'empty' special case. It lacks details on error handling or ordering beyond 'front of the pool', but is largely sufficient.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description adds value. It explains that 'count' caps the returned records from the front, and that 'empty' kind returns []. However, it does not elaborate on 'kind' beyond naming it, leaving some ambiguity.

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 it returns a 'seeded pool of records' for a given 'kind', using a specific verb. It differentiates from siblings like 'count_records' and 'get_record' by implying this tool returns a list.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description explains parameter usage (count, empty) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over siblings like 'count_records' or 'get_record'. The context is implied but lacks direct guidance.

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

server_infoA

Health/status of the server (the REST server's GET / route).

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No parameters

Output Schema

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescription

No output parameters

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It describes a read-only operation (health/status) via a GET route, which is non-destructive and safe. While it doesn't detail the specific fields returned (handled by output schema), the behavioral nature is clear.

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?

A single sentence that is clear and to the point. No unnecessary words or redundancy. It front-loads the action and resource 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 zero parameters and the presence of an output schema, the description is largely adequate. It tells what the tool does. Minor improvement could mention it returns server health status, but it's sufficient.

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

Parameters4/5

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

The tool has no parameters, and schema coverage is 100% (empty object). With no params, the description doesn't need to add parameter meaning; baseline 4 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 returns 'Health/status of the server' via the REST server's GET / route. It specifies the verb (get health/status) and resource (server), and distinguishes it from sibling tools that deal with records.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

No explicit when/when-not/alternatives are given. However, the context of sibling tools (count_records, get_record, list_records) implies this is for server health, not data operations. Usage is implied but not explicitly defined.

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

Tool Schema Changelog

Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. 4 tool updatesv0.2.3
    • First observedcount_records
    • First observedget_record
    • First observedlist_records
    • First observedserver_info

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Each tool has a distinct purpose: counting records, retrieving by ID, listing with options, and server health. No ambiguity among them.

Naming Consistency4/5

Most tools follow verb_noun pattern (count_records, get_record, list_records), but server_info deviates as a noun_verb? phrase, causing minor inconsistency.

Tool Count5/5

Four tools is well-scoped for a simple read-only data server, each tool earns its place without unnecessary complexity.

Completeness3/5

The server covers basic read operations (list, get, count) but lacks create, update, delete functionalities, leaving notable gaps for a full data API.

Maintenance

ActivityActive
ResponsivenessSyncing

Resources

Unclaimed servers have limited discoverability.

Looking for Admin?

If you are the server author, to access and configure the admin panel.

Related MCP Connectors

Related MCP Servers

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/mitchallen/random-mcp-server'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server