Configure social networks and their HTTPS profile URLs to rewrite the Datenschutz social-media section. Disable all networks to remove it.
Switch social networks and set their profile URLs (https only), then rewrite the Datenschutz social-media section; with nothing on, the section is removed. Requires cvrt-legal 0.6.0+.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| site | Yes | Site id (see list_sites) | |
| networks | Yes | network key => { enabled, urls } |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v3.4.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses important effects: URL values must be HTTPS, the Datenschutz section is rewritten, and the section is removed when nothing is enabled. It also gives a version requirement, though it does not cover permissions, reversibility, or response behavior.
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 compact and front-loaded: the primary mutation is stated first, followed by side effects and the version requirement. Every sentence contributes useful operational information.
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 nested-object mutation tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the key side effects and input constraint. It does not explain return values, but no output schema exists, and remaining schema details such as site id are documented in the schema itself.
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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful constraints beyond the schema, notably that profile URLs must be HTTPS and that disabling all networks removes the section, which helps interpret the 'enabled' parameter.
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 states specific actions: switching social networks, setting profile URLs, and rewriting the Datenschutz social-media section. It clearly distinguishes this mutation tool from read-only siblings such as legal_get_social and legal_get_social_modules.
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?
Usage is implied by the stated actions and the behavior when no networks are enabled, but the description does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus legal_put_social_modules or other legal settings tools. The version prerequisite is useful context but not alternative-routing guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.