API Hub MCP — 337+ Tools

generate_ulids

Generate sortable, timestamp-encoded unique identifiers (ULIDs) for lexicographic ordering by creation time.

Instructions

Generate one or more ULIDs (Universally Unique Lexicographically Sortable IDs).

Use this when you need sortable unique identifiers that encode a
timestamp. ULIDs are 26-character, URL-safe, and sortable by creation time.

Parameters:
    count — Number of ULIDs to generate (default: 1).

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_ulids"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`count`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv2.4.1Jun 22, 2026

TDQS

A4.6/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It states the behavior (generation of ULIDs), properties (26-character, URL-safe, sortable), and the count parameter. No side effects or destructive actions exist, but it could mention idempotency or uniqueness guarantees.

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: two sentences and one bullet point. It front-loads the main purpose, provides usage context, and details the parameter efficiently with no redundant information.

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

Completeness5/5

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

Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, output schema exists), the description covers everything needed: what it does, when to use, and parameter details. The output schema handles return format, so the description is complete.

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

Parameters5/5

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

Schema coverage is 0%, but the description explicitly explains the 'count' parameter: its purpose, default value (1), and effect. This adds significant meaning beyond the schema's type and default.

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 verb 'Generate' and the resource 'ULIDs', and distinguishes from siblings by specifying the unique property of ULIDs (lexicographically sortable with timestamp). It also briefly explains what ULIDs are, leaving no ambiguity.

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 explicitly says 'Use this when you need sortable unique identifiers that encode a timestamp', providing clear context for when to choose this tool. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives but the mention of sortability differentiates it from siblings like generate_uuid.

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

Deploy Server