Handsome Hosting

Site document template

site_document_template

Read-only

The Hebrew privacy policy or accessibility statement a business site needs under Israeli law, as a template: every section in and every answer a {{name}} blank, the fields, each with its question for the person and what we already know (pass serviceId for a site that exists), and the rules for building the page into the site.

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": {
      "doc": "<doc>"
    },
    "name": "site_document_template"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`doc`	Yes
`serviceId`	No	the site the page is for, when it exists; fills in what we know about it

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`ok`	Yes
`data`	No
`error`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedOct 23, 2026

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

The annotation readOnlyHint=true is consistent. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: it discloses the template's structure ('every section in and every answer a {{name}} blank, the fields, each with its question...'), the pre-filled known information, and the rules for building the page. This helps the agent understand the return content, though it could be clearer about the exact output shape.

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

Conciseness2/5

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

The description is a single, long, convoluted sentence that buries the main purpose inside a relative clause. It is not front-loaded, and the parenthetical about serviceId interrupts the flow. The content is not excessive, but the structure makes it harder to parse quickly.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (two parameters, read-only, output schema exists), the description covers the key aspects: what document types are available, the conditional use of serviceId, and the template's generation rules. It lacks explicit mention of language or output format details, but with an output schema present, that omission is minor.

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 coverage is 50%: the doc enum has no description, while serviceId has a description. The description compensates by naming the two document types ('Hebrew privacy policy or accessibility statement') and reiterating the serviceId condition. However, it does not explicitly map doc to its parameter name and the phrasing is tangled, so the added value is moderate.

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 identifies the resource precisely: a Hebrew privacy policy or accessibility statement template for Israeli business sites. It implicitly states the action (returns a template) and distinguishes from all siblings, which are site-management actions. The awkward sentence structure slightly muddies the core purpose, but an agent can still tell what it does.

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?

It gives a conditional hint: 'pass serviceId for a site that exists', implying use when a site exists versus not. However, there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not, and no named alternatives (none exist among siblings). The context is implied rather than stated.

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

All Handsome Hosting tools Inspect

Try in Browser

Claude Code, inside the Godot 4 editorFlockbay puts an AI agent in the real Godot 4 editor: it writes GDScript, runs your game and fixes what breaks. Free, or bring your own Claude Code or Codex.flockbay.comAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?