Generate one or more RFC 4122 v4 UUIDs (random). Returns an array of strings, even for a single UUID, so callers don't have to special-case length.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| count | No | How many UUIDs to generate. Defaults to 1. Max 100 per call. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| count | Yes | How many UUIDs were generated. | |
| uuids | Yes | Array of generated UUIDs. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already establish read-only, non-destructive, and idempotent behavior. The description adds valuable context beyond this: the return type is always an array of strings even for one UUID, and UUIDs are random. This helps callers handle responses correctly.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single sentence covers purpose and a key behavioral detail (array return) with no wasted words. The most important information is front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
This is a simple tool with one optional parameter, full schema coverage, and an output schema. The description states the return type and behavior, and annotations cover the safety profile. Nothing important is missing.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema fully describes the 'count' parameter with min, max, default, and a clear description. The description's phrase 'one or more' reinforces the schema but adds no new semantic meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Generate') and resource ('RFC 4122 v4 UUIDs'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling generator tools. It also specifies the random variant, leaving no ambiguity about what the tool does.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description clearly implies when to use it (whenever a v4 UUID is needed) and there is no sibling tool for UUID generation, so exclusions are unnecessary. It doesn't explicitly state alternatives, but the singular purpose makes the usage context clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Most tools have distinct purposes. However, 'hex-to-rgb' is redundant with 'color-converter', which already handles hex-to-RGB conversion, causing potential confusion.
Names follow a consistent lowercase-with-hyphens style, but vary in pattern (e.g., 'angle-converter', 'average-calculator', 'dedup-lines'). One tool ('internal-do-not-call') deviates from the descriptive norm.
With 46 tools, the server is heavily populated. Many converters could be merged into a generic unit converter, and there is redundancy, making the surface unnecessarily large for a single server.
The server covers a broad range of utility domains: converters, text processing, math, cryptography, etc. Minor redundancies exist (e.g., hex-to-rgb vs color-converter), but the set is otherwise comprehensive.
