Create and manage brand/project pages posting as an official entity with roles and updates.
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": {
"action": "<action>"
},
"name": "socnet_page"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| action | Yes | ||
| params | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already declare that this is not read-only and is destructive, but the description does not explain which actions destroy data, how deletion works, what permissions are required, or what side effects follow from role changes and moderation. It adds only minimal context beyond the annotations.
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?
The description is a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted wording. Its brevity contributes to the parameter and behavioral gaps, but as a concise statement it is structurally efficient.
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 complex multi-action tool with a nested params object, destructive operations, and no output schema. The description does not cover the action-specific behavior, permission model, destructive scope, or expected inputs needed to call it reliably.
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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain the action enum, the nested params object, or action-specific parameters. Mentioning roles and updates gives slight hints toward set_role and update, but most of the eight supported actions remain semantically undocumented.
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 identifies a specific resource, brand/project pages, and the broad operations of creating and managing them as an official entity. It does not explicitly distinguish this from sibling tools such as socnet_group or socnet_post, but the core purpose is understandable.
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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool instead of related page, group, post, or interaction tools. It lists actions only indirectly through 'create and manage' and gives no exclusions or prerequisites.
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.