devutils-mcp-server

generate_password

Generate secure random passwords with configurable length, uppercase, lowercase, numbers, symbols, and multiple passwords at once.

Instructions

Generate a secure random password with configurable options.

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
`length`	No	Password length (4-256, default: 16)
`uppercase`	No	Include uppercase letters (default: true)
`lowercase`	No	Include lowercase letters (default: true)
`numbers`	No	Include numbers (default: true)
`symbols`	No	Include symbols (default: true)
`count`	No	Number of passwords to generate (1-50)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Mar 24, 2026

TDQS

B3.2/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It states 'secure random' but offers no detail on what security implies (e.g., entropy guarantee, CSPRNG usage) or the return format (single string vs array). This is insufficient for a tool generating sensitive data.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose. Every word earns its place without unnecessary detail.

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

Completeness2/5

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

Given the tool has 6 parameters and no output schema, the description is too minimal. It does not explain how multiple boolean options interact (e.g., if all false), the format of output (array vs single string), or any constraints like entropy guarantees. Leaves gaps for an agent to infer.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds 'configurable options' but no new meaning beyond what the schema already provides for parameters like length, uppercase, etc.

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 'Generate a secure random password with configurable options', specifying the action (generate), the resource (password), and the key attributes (secure, random, configurable). It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like generate_uuid or generate_nanoid.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., generate_nanoid, generate_uuid) or when not to use it. It lacks any context about prerequisites or typical use cases.

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