Skip to main content
Glama

toolforte

by io.github.Toinedotcom

BRP Test Data Generator

generate_brp_test_data
Read-onlyIdempotent

Generate Dutch BRP/GBA test persons with valid BSNs, families, addresses and life events (married, widowed, deceased, moved, living abroad). Use this instead of inventing Dutch personal data: made-up BSNs fail the elfproef and are rejected by real systems. Deterministic per seed. For more than 50 people or CSV output, use the REST API at https://toolforte.com/api/v1/tools/brp-test-data-generator

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
seedNoSame seed returns the same people. Omit for the default set.
countNoHow many test persons to generate, 1 to 50 (default 10)
maxAgeNoOldest age to generate, in years
minAgeNoYoungest age to generate, in years
dateFormatNoHow dates are written: yyyymmdd (BRP style), iso (YYYY-MM-DD) or dutch (DD-MM-YYYY)
lifeEventsNoRelative weights per life event, for example {married: 5, widowed: 2}. Valid ids: plain, married, registeredPartnership, divorced, widowed, remarried, deceased, deceasedWithFamily, minor, nearRetirement, livesAbroad, movedRecently, confidential, underInvestigation, noFixedAddress
referenceYearNoYear ages and life events are calculated against.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
seedNo
countNoNumber of items
formatNo
peopleNo
resultNoThe result, when it is not an object

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. Changed5 schema fields changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / count / description
      Added value: +"How many test persons to generate, 1 to 50 (default 10)"
    • addedInput schema / properties / dateFormat / description
      Added value: +"How dates are written: yyyymmdd (BRP style), iso (YYYY-MM-DD) or dutch (DD-MM-YYYY)"
    • addedInput schema / properties / maxAge / description
      Added value: +"Oldest age to generate, in years"
    • addedInput schema / properties / minAge / description
      Added value: +"Youngest age to generate, in years"
    • changedOutput schema / (root)
      Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "$schema": "https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema",
+  "additionalProperties": {},
+  "properties": {
+    "count": {
+      "description": "Number of items",
+      "type": "number"
+    },
+    "format": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "people": {
+      "items": {},
+      "type": "array"
+    },
+    "result": {
+      "description": "The result, when it is not an object"
+    },
+    "seed": {
+      "type": "number"
+    }
+  },
+  "type": "object"
+}
  2. First observed

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already carry the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=false, destructiveHint=false), so the bar is lower. The description adds value beyond those annotations by disclosing the determinism mechanism ('Deterministic per seed'), the output-validity guarantee (BSNs that pass the elfproef and are accepted by real systems), and a scale limitation (the 50-person threshold). No statement contradicts the annotations.

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?

Four sentences, purpose first, with every sentence earning its place: what it generates, when to prefer it over inventing data, the determinism guarantee, and the scale/routing alternative. There is zero filler and the most decision-relevant facts are front-loaded.

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 7-parameter tool with nested lifeEvents configuration, rich annotations, and an output schema, the description covers the essentials: purpose, validity rationale, determinism, and the scale boundary with an alternative endpoint. A minor gap is the unspecified behavior at the 50-count boundary (clamping versus error), but the REST-API redirect resolves that decision point for the agent; output schema and annotations cover return values and safety.

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 reported at 100%, so parameters are already documented and the baseline is 3. The description adds modest semantic value by tying seed to determinism and the >50 limit to the count parameter, but it does not add syntax-level detail for dateFormat, referenceYear, or the lifeEvents weight object that the schema's enums and valid-id list already cover.

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 first sentence states a specific verb and resource: 'Generate Dutch BRP/GBA test persons with valid BSNs, families, addresses and life events', enumerating concrete features. This clearly distinguishes it from the closest sibling, generate_test_bsn, which by name only produces individual BSNs rather than full persons with families and life events.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

The description gives explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Use this instead of inventing Dutch personal data: made-up BSNs fail the elfproef and are rejected by real systems.' It also names a specific alternative with its triggering condition: 'For more than 50 people or CSV output, use the REST API at https://toolforte.com/api/v1/tools/brp-test-data-generator.' An agent does not need to infer when to select this tool.

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

All toolforte toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Every tool targets a distinct resource or action, and the detailed descriptions clearly separate near neighbors like generate_test_bsn versus generate_brp_test_data, read_page versus url_screenshot versus url_to_pdf, and image_compress/convert/resize. Even with 40 tools, there is no real boundary-blurring overlap.

Naming Consistency3/5

All names are snake_case and readable, but the set mixes conventions: verb_noun (generate_*, validate_*), noun_verb (pdf_merge, image_resize), conversion-style names (csv_to_json, html_to_pdf), and bare nouns (base64, qr_code_png). The groups are recognizable, but there is no single predictable pattern.

Tool Count2/5

Forty tools is an oversized surface for an agent to consider on every call, well above the point where tool selection cost starts to hurt. The broad purpose explains the count, but many one-off utilities could be grouped or exposed selectively.

Completeness3/5

The server covers many domains—encoding, Dutch test data, image/PDF handling, memory, and workflows—but several categories are partial: there are no reverse conversions like json_to_csv or html_to_markdown, no PDF text extraction, and no workflow create/update/delete tools. Agents can work around some gaps, but notable operations are missing.

Resources