Skip to main content
Glama
paladini

devutils-mcp-server

by paladini
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
TypeScript
Remote

generate_random_hex

Generate random hexadecimal strings for development needs like unique identifiers, cryptographic keys, or test data by specifying byte length.

Instructions

Generate a random hexadecimal string of the specified byte length.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
bytesNoNumber of random bytes (output will be 2x this length in hex)

Implementation Reference

  • src/tools/generators.ts:137-140 (handler)
    Handler for generate_random_hex, using randomBytes to generate the hex string.
    async ({ bytes }) => ({
  content: [
    { type: "text" as const, text: randomBytes(bytes).toString("hex") },
  ],
  • src/tools/generators.ts:128-136 (schema)
    Zod schema defining the input for generate_random_hex.
    {
  bytes: z
    .number()
    .int()
    .min(1)
    .max(256)
    .default(16)
    .describe("Number of random bytes (output will be 2x this length in hex)"),
},
  • src/tools/generators.ts:125-136 (registration)
    Registration of the generate_random_hex tool on the MCP server.
    server.tool(
  "generate_random_hex",
  "Generate a random hexadecimal string of the specified byte length.",
  {
    bytes: z
      .number()
      .int()
      .min(1)
      .max(256)
      .default(16)
      .describe("Number of random bytes (output will be 2x this length in hex)"),
  },

Tool Definition Quality

A3.8/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It identifies the operation as 'random' (non-deterministic) and specifies the output format as 'hexadecimal string.' However, it omits critical behavioral context such as whether the randomness is cryptographically secure (relevant given hash_* and bcrypt siblings), rate limits, or side effects.

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 9-word sentence with no filler. It front-loads the action (Generate) and efficiently conveys the essential operation, input constraint (byte length), and output type (hexadecimal string). Every word earns its place.

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 low complexity (1 optional parameter, simple operation) and 100% schema coverage, the description adequately covers the core functionality. It could be improved by addressing cryptographic suitability given the presence of security-related siblings (hash_*, bcrypt), but it sufficiently describes the basic contract for a utility tool.

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% with the bytes parameter fully documented as 'Number of random bytes.' The description references 'specified byte length,' which aligns with but does not extend beyond the schema. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as no additional semantic clarification is needed in the description.

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 'Generate a random hexadecimal string of the specified byte length' provides a specific verb (Generate), resource (random hexadecimal string), and scope (byte length). It clearly distinguishes from siblings like hex_encode (which transforms existing data) by emphasizing 'random' generation, and differentiates from generate_uuid/generate_password by specifying hex format.

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 implies usage through the word 'random,' signaling this is for creating new random data rather than encoding existing data (hex_encode) or generating passwords. However, it lacks explicit when-to-use guidance or comparisons to alternatives like generate_uuid for cryptographic IDs versus general random hex.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

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/paladini/devutils-mcp-server'

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