Skip to main content
Glama
enesjakozh
rycid

RandomUser MCP Server

by rycid
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
JavaScript
Remote

RandomUser MCP Server

An MCP server that provides enhanced access to the randomuser.me API with additional features like custom formatting, password generation, and weighted nationality distribution.

Installation

Clone the repository:

git clone https://github.com/rycid/randomuserMCP.git
cd randomuserMCP

# Install dependencies
npm install

# Build the project
npm run build

Related MCP server: mcp-rando-server

Usage

Add to your MCP settings file (claude_desktop_config.json or cline_mcp_settings.json):

{
  "mcpServers": {
    "randomuser": {
      "command": "node",
      "args": ["path/to/randomuserMCP/build/index.js"]
    }
  }
}

Available Tools

get_random_user

Get a single random user with customizable options.

{
  "gender": "female",
  "nationality": "US",
  "fields": {
    "mode": "include",
    "values": ["name", "email", "phone"]
  },
  "format": {
    "type": "json",
    "structure": {
      "flattenObjects": true,
      "nameFormat": "full"
    }
  },
  "password": {
    "charsets": ["special", "upper", "lower", "number"],
    "minLength": 8,
    "maxLength": 12
  }
}

get_multiple_users

Get multiple random users with weighted nationality distribution.

{
  "count": 10,
  "nationality": ["US", "GB", "FR"],
  "nationalityWeights": {
    "US": 0.5,
    "GB": 0.3,
    "FR": 0.2
  },
  "fields": {
    "mode": "include",
    "values": ["name", "email", "nat"]
  },
  "format": {
    "type": "csv",
    "csv": {
      "delimiter": ",",
      "includeHeader": true
    }
  }
}

Output Formats

The server supports multiple output formats:

JSON (default)

  • Nested or flattened objects

  • Customizable name formats (full, first_last, separate)

  • Date formatting options (iso, unix, formatted)

CSV

  • Customizable delimiter

  • Optional headers

  • Automatically flattened data structure

SQL

  • Multiple dialect support (MySQL, PostgreSQL, SQLite)

  • Optional CREATE TABLE statements

  • Proper escaping and type handling

XML

  • Standard XML format

  • Nested data structure

  • Proper escaping of special characters

Field Selection

Include or exclude specific fields:

{
  "fields": {
    "mode": "include",  // or "exclude"
    "values": [
      "name",
      "phone",
      "email",
      "location",
      "picture",
      "dob",
      "login",
      "registered",
      "id",
      "cell",
      "nat"
    ]
  }
}

Supported Nationalities

  • AU: Australia

  • BR: Brazil

  • CA: Canada

  • CH: Switzerland

  • DE: Germany

  • DK: Denmark

  • ES: Spain

  • FI: Finland

  • FR: France

  • GB: United Kingdom

  • IE: Ireland

  • IN: India

  • IR: Iran

  • MX: Mexico

  • NL: Netherlands

  • NO: Norway

  • NZ: New Zealand

  • RS: Serbia

  • TR: Turkey

  • UA: Ukraine

  • US: United States

Development

# Install dependencies
npm install

# Build the project
npm run build

# Start in development mode (with watch mode)
npm run dev

# Start the server
npm start

License

MIT

Available Tools

2 tools
get_multiple_usersC

Get multiple random users

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
countYesNumber of users to generate
genderNo
nationalityNo
nationalityWeightsNo
fieldsNo
formatNo
passwordNo

TDQS

C2.6/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Get multiple random users' implies a read operation but doesn't specify whether this generates synthetic data, queries a database, or has side effects. It lacks critical behavioral context like rate limits, authentication needs, data freshness, or what 'random' entails (e.g., uniform distribution, seed control). The description is insufficient for a tool with 7 parameters and complex nested structures.

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 extremely concise at just three words, with zero wasted text. It's front-loaded and to the point, though this brevity comes at the cost of completeness. Every word ('Get', 'multiple', 'random', 'users') contributes directly to the core purpose.

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

Completeness2/5

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

Given the tool's complexity (7 parameters with nested objects, 14% schema coverage, no output schema, and no annotations), the description is severely incomplete. It doesn't address what the tool returns, how 'random' generation works, the scope of user data, or the interplay between parameters like 'gender', 'nationality', and 'fields'. For a data generation tool with rich configuration options, this minimal description leaves critical gaps.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is only 14%, meaning most parameters lack documentation in the schema. The description 'Get multiple random users' adds minimal semantic value—it only hints at the 'count' parameter for 'multiple' and 'random' which might relate to generation logic. It doesn't explain the purpose of complex parameters like 'nationalityWeights', 'fields', 'format', or 'password', leaving the agent to guess their roles from schema structure alone.

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

Purpose3/5

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

The description 'Get multiple random users' states the basic action (get) and resource (users) with the qualifier 'multiple random', but it's vague about what 'random' means in this context and doesn't distinguish from the sibling tool 'get_random_user'. It provides a minimal purpose statement without specificity about the source or nature of these users.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of the sibling tool 'get_random_user', nor any context about appropriate use cases, prerequisites, or constraints. The agent must infer usage solely from the tool name and parameters.

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

get_random_userC

Get a single random user

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
genderNoFilter results by gender
nationalityNoSpecify nationality
fieldsNoSpecify which fields to include
formatNo
passwordNo

TDQS

C2.8/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Get a single random user' implies a read operation but doesn't address important behavioral aspects like rate limits, authentication requirements, data freshness, or what 'random' means in practice (uniform distribution, seed behavior, etc.). The description is too minimal for a tool with 5 parameters and complex nested structures.

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 extremely concise at just 5 words, with no wasted language. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and uses minimal syntax. While potentially under-specified, it earns full marks for conciseness.

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

Completeness2/5

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

Given the complexity (5 parameters with nested objects, no output schema, no annotations), the description is severely incomplete. It doesn't explain the tool's behavior, parameter usage, return format, or relationship to sibling tools. For a tool with this level of parameter complexity, the minimal description fails to provide adequate context for effective use.

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

Parameters2/5

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

The description mentions no parameters at all, despite the input schema having 5 parameters with only 60% description coverage. The schema documents gender, nationality, fields, format, and password parameters with varying detail, but the description adds zero semantic context about what these parameters do or how they affect the random user generation.

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 ('Get') and resource ('a single random user'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from the sibling tool 'get_multiple_users' beyond the 'single' vs 'multiple' distinction, which is implied but not explicitly stated.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus its sibling 'get_multiple_users' or any alternatives. There's no mention of use cases, prerequisites, or trade-offs between getting a single random user versus multiple users.

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

Tool Schema Changelog

Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. 2 tool updates
    • First observedget_multiple_users
    • First observedget_random_user
Install Server
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

The two tools have clearly distinct purposes: one retrieves a single random user, while the other retrieves multiple random users. There is no overlap or ambiguity in their functions, making it easy for an agent to select the appropriate tool based on the desired outcome.

Naming Consistency5/5

Both tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with 'get' as the verb and descriptive nouns ('random_user', 'multiple_users'). The naming is uniform and predictable, using snake_case throughout without any deviations.

Tool Count2/5

With only 2 tools, the server feels thin for a 'RandomUser' domain, as it lacks operations like filtering users by criteria, updating user data, or handling user-related workflows. While the tools cover basic retrieval, the count is too low for a comprehensive user management or data generation scope.

Completeness2/5

The tool surface is severely incomplete for a user-related server, offering only retrieval of random users without any ability to create, update, delete, or filter users. There are significant gaps that would limit agent functionality, such as no way to specify user attributes or manage user data beyond basic fetching.

Maintenance

ActivityInactive
ResponsivenessNo issues

Resources

Unclaimed servers have limited discoverability.

Looking for Admin?

If you are the server author, to access and configure the admin panel.

Related MCP Connectors

Related MCP Servers

  • mcp-rando-server

    hesreallyhim
    F
    license
    Not graded
    quality
    D
    maintenance
    Cryptographically secure random number generation and randomized resources, including tools for numbers, strings, dice rolls, UUIDs, and passphrases.
    4
    -

  • password_generator20

    BACH-AI-Tools
    A
    license
    C
    quality
    D
    maintenance
    Generates passwords with customizable length, special characters, numbers, and umlauts via the Password Generator20 API.
    1
    MIT

  • faker-server

    data-mindset
    A
    license
    Not graded
    quality
    D
    maintenance
    Provides tools for generating fake data using Faker.js, including person, lorem, internet, and more, with support for multiple locales and customizable options.
    55
    MIT

Appeared in Searches

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/rycid/randomuserMCP'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server