open_graph_generatorGenerate Open Graph and Twitter Card meta tags for social sharing from a title, description, and URL. Create tags that control link previews on social platforms.
Generate Open Graph and Twitter Card meta tags for social sharing.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | ||
| type | No | ||
| image | No | ||
| title | Yes | ||
| siteName | No | ||
| description | Yes | ||
| twitterHandle | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds nothing beyond purpose — it does not say whether output is HTML tags, a JSON object, or text, nor whether generation is deterministic or requires network access for image validation.
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?
A single ten-word sentence with the action front-loaded and no filler. It is efficient, though its brevity reflects under-specification rather than disciplined trimming.
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?
For a 7-parameter, 3-required tool with no output schema, the description should at minimum indicate the output format and the role of the required fields. Neither is present, leaving a substantial gap for an agent to invoke it correctly.
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% across 7 parameters, and the description names none of them, so the agent learns nothing about title, description, url, image, type, siteName, or twitterHandle semantics. The mention of Open Graph/Twitter Cards gives only the vaguest domain hint (e.g., that twitterHandle is Twitter-specific), which is far from compensating for a fully undocumented schema.
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?
States a specific verb ('Generate') and resource ('Open Graph and Twitter Card meta tags'), which distinguishes it from the broad meta_tag_generator sibling by naming the exact tag families produced. It stops short of explicitly contrasting itself with that sibling, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.
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?
There is no guidance on when to choose this over meta_tag_generator or schema_markup_generator, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. Only the purpose is stated; context must be inferred entirely from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.