Privacy Policy URL

Generate App Store and Google Play privacy label answers

generate_store_privacy_labels

Read-onlyIdempotent

Answers for Apple's App Privacy details and Google Play's Data safety form from the SDKs an app uses, their settings and the data the app collects itself. Every answer carries the vendor or store page it comes from. Settings are yes/no questions per SDK (ids like ga.user_id, app.iap); unknown ids are rejected. SDK ids: firebase-analytics, firebase-crashlytics, firebase-auth, firebase-messaging, admob, meta, revenuecat, onesignal, sentry, stripe, mixpanel, amplitude, google-sign-in, sign-in-with-apple, appsflyer. Returns wizardUrl, a privacy-policy wizard link with the same services and personal data filled in. A starting point to check, not legal advice.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "platforms": "<platforms>",
      "sdks": "<sdks>"
    },
    "name": "generate_store_privacy_labels"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`sdks`	Yes
`ownData`	No
`settings`	No
`platforms`	Yes
`deletionRequest`	No
`encryptedInTransit`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed2 schema fields changedOct 23, 2026
- removedInput schema / additionalProperties
```
Removed value: -false
```
- addedInput schema / properties / settings / propertyNames
```
Added value: +{
+  "type": "string"
+}
```
AddedOct 23, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover read-only and idempotent behavior, yet the description adds real value: every answer carries a vendor/store source citation, unknown ids are rejected (an error path), and the return includes wizardUrl. The legal-advice caveat further sets expectations about output trustworthiness.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Front-loaded with the outcome, then scope, then return value and caveat. The enumeration of all 15 SDK ids largely duplicates the schema enum, which is redundant reading, but the sentence structure otherwise earns its space.

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

Completeness3/5

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

There is no output schema, so the description bears the burden of explaining the result; it mentions wizardUrl and per-answer source citations but gives no sense of the answer payload shape. Combined with the three unexplained parameters, an agent knows what the tool produces conceptually but not fully what to pass or expect.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does explain `settings` (yes/no per SDK with dotted ids like ga.user_id, app.iap) and names the supported SDK ids matching the enum, but `platforms`, `deletionRequest` and `encryptedInTransit` are left entirely undocumented in both places — half the parameters remain opaque.

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?

States a specific verb+resource: answers for Apple App Privacy details and Google Play Data safety form, derived from SDKs, settings and own-collected data. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like generate_privacy_manifest or create_privacy_policy_url, which produce different artifacts.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The framing 'a starting point to check, not legal advice' and 'unknown ids are rejected' imply usage and constraints, but there is no explicit when-to-use versus the sibling tools (e.g. generate_privacy_manifest for the iOS manifest, create_privacy_policy_url for a hosted policy). The agent must infer routing itself.

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

All Privacy Policy URL tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?