Microapp

terms-of-service-generator

Read-onlyIdempotent

Assemble a Terms of Service document from a small set of inputs: company name, website, contact email, jurisdiction (state + country), service type (SaaS / e-commerce / content), and toggles for user-generated content, paid plans, refund window, and binding arbitration. Output is a complete plain-text document plus the list of section headings. NOT legal advice — the output is a starting template that a qualified attorney should review before publication.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`paidPlan`	Yes	True if any part of the service is paid. Triggers sections 8 (Billing) and 9 (Refunds).
`websiteUrl`	Yes	Website URL where the service is offered (e.g. 'https://example.com'). Used in section 2.
`arbitration`	Yes	True if disputes must be resolved by binding arbitration (rather than in court). Shapes section 15.
`companyName`	Yes	Legal or operating name of the company that runs the service (e.g. 'Acme, Inc.').
`serviceType`	Yes	Shape of the service: 'saas' (software/app), 'ecommerce' (online store), or 'content' (publication/media).
`contactEmail`	Yes	Email address users can write to with questions about the Terms (e.g. 'legal@example.com').
`refundPolicy`	Yes	Refund window. 'none' means no refunds; the others grant a money-back period from purchase. Ignored if paidPlan is false.
`effectiveDate`	Yes	Effective date in any human-readable form (e.g. '2026-05-14' or 'May 14, 2026'). Empty defaults to today's ISO date.
`jurisdictionState`	Yes	State, province, or region that governs the Terms (e.g. 'California', 'Ontario'). May be empty if not applicable.
`jurisdictionCountry`	Yes	Country whose law governs the Terms (e.g. 'United States', 'Brazil').
`userGeneratedContent`	Yes	True if users can post, upload, or otherwise contribute content. Triggers section 5.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`document`	Yes	The complete Terms of Service text, ready to copy or save.
`sections`	Yes	Section headings emitted, in order — useful for a table of contents.
`wordCount`	Yes	Word count of the rendered document.
`disclaimer`	Yes	Reminder that this output is a template, not legal advice.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

AddedMay 21, 2026

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already supply safety hints (read-only, idempotent, non-destructive). The description adds valuable context beyond that: the output is a plain-text template plus section headings, it is not legal advice, and an attorney should review it. No contradiction with annotations.

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 front-loaded with the verb and resource, uses three sentences, and every sentence earns its place: inputs, output, and caveat. It is concise without being under-specified.

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

Completeness5/5

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

Given the 11 parameters, 100% schema coverage, output schema, and annotations, the description covers the necessary context: what it does, what it returns, and important legal limitations. No critical information is missing.

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 100%, with each parameter already explaining its role (e.g., 'Triggers sections 8 and 9'). The description summarizes the inputs but does not add meaningful detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

The description uses a specific verb ('Assemble') with an explicit resource ('a Terms of Service document'), lists the key input categories, and states the output format. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like cookie-consent-generator.

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 context is clear: it generates a ToS template from a set of inputs. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it provide exclusions beyond the general 'not legal advice' caveat.

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

All Microapp 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?