Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
oh-my-mcp

oh-my-mcp

by quyansiyuanwang
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

generate_random_string

Generate a random string of specified length using various character sets like alphanumeric, letters, digits, hex, or ASCII.

Instructions

Generate a random string.

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_random_string"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
lengthNoLength of string to generate (default: 16)
charsetNoCharacter set - 'alphanumeric', 'letters', 'digits', 'hex', 'ascii' (default: alphanumeric)alphanumeric

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Generate a random string' without detailing randomness quality (e.g., cryptographic security), charset constraints, or edge cases. The parameter schema covers some semantics, but the description adds no 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.

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is a single short sentence, which is concise and front-loaded. However, it may be too minimal, sacrificing completeness for brevity. Every word earns its place, but lacks informative value.

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

Completeness3/5

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

Given the tool's simplicity and the existence of a complete input schema (with output schema likely defined), the description is barely adequate. It does not explain random generation properties or handle edge cases, but for a straightforward string generator, it might suffice.

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%, and the parameter descriptions in the schema are clear. The tool description does not add any extra meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the verb 'Generate' and the resource 'random string'. It is specific enough for a simple utility, but does not differentiate from similar sibling tools like generate_password or generate_uuid, which could lead to confusion.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention any context, prerequisites, or exclude conditions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools