Skip to main content
Glama

NanoTools

by io.github.nanotools-x402

Api Uuid

api_uuid

Generate UUIDv4 (and optional count ?n= up to 100). [HTTP x402 price: $0.001]

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
paramsNo

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

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

  1. Changed2 schema fields changed
    • removedInput schema / properties / params / additionalProperties
      Removed value: -true
    • addedInput schema / properties / params / properties
      Added value: +{
+  "n": {
+    "anyOf": [
+      {
+        "type": "string"
+      },
+      {
+        "type": "null"
+      }
+    ],
+    "default": null
+  }
+}
  2. First observed

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the up-to-100 count limit and a $0.001 price, but the 'HTTP x402' phrasing is cryptic and error/edge-case behavior is not addressed.

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?

One concise sentence plus a bracket price note; every element adds information and the main verb is front-loaded. No wasted words.

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 simple generator tool with an output schema, the description covers the key parameter and cost context. It is slightly incomplete only in not explaining the cryptic x402 note or error behavior, but nothing essential is missing for a basic call.

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%, and the input schema only shows n as a nullable string. The description compensates fully by explaining n is an optional count with a maximum of 100.

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?

Description states a specific verb and resource: generate UUIDv4, and adds the optional count behavior. It does not explicitly distinguish from siblings, but 'UUIDv4' is a distinct, unambiguous function among the listed utilities.

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?

There is no indication of when to choose this tool over alternatives, no exclusions, and no naming of sibling comparisons. The only usage hint is the optional count, which is more parameter semantics than selection guidance.

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

All NanoTools 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

B3.1/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Several tools have unclear boundaries: api_search and api_serp_google both return Google results, api_scrape and api_render_text both extract page text, and api_hash_multi overlaps with api_sha256 for SHA-256/SHA-512. While many tools are distinct, these overlapping pairs create real misselection risk.

Naming Consistency5/5

Every tool follows the same api_<snake_case> pattern with no mixed conventions or casing styles. The prefix makes the server immediately recognizable and the action/resource is consistently readable across all 44 tools.

Tool Count2/5

44 tools is well over the 25+ threshold for a well-scoped set, making the server feel like a grab-bag of unrelated utilities. Even though each tool is small and individually useful, the overall surface is too large and would benefit from consolidation into focused sub-servers.

Completeness3/5

The set covers many common utility categories—encodings, conversions, text analysis, web scraping, SEO, and trends—but has notable one-way gaps: CSV/YAML/TOML all convert to JSON but not back, and markdown converts to HTML but not the reverse. The broad domain makes full completeness hard to define, so only major reverse-conversion gaps stand out.

Resources