Preview proposed visibility and contact-setting changes before applying them, returning a non-mutating validation only when the provider supports an approved mutation capability.
Preview a visibility_contact_settings mutation. Disabled by default and available only when the provider advertises an approved mutation capability.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| changes | Yes | ||
| provider | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations supplied, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose one genuinely important trait: the tool is gated off by default behind an advertised capability. It does not say whether preview has side effects, what the response contains (validation errors? a changelog?), or what happens when the capability is missing (error vs. empty result).
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?
Two compact sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and followed by the availability constraint. No padding or redundancy; the only weakness is the unexplained internal type name in the first clause.
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?
The tool has a nested, enum-constrained schema, zero annotation coverage, and no output schema, yet the description is two sentences. An agent still cannot tell what a preview returns, which fields are editable, or what to do when the capability gate fails — the gaps sit exactly where the structured data is weakest.
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% for a two-parameter tool with a nested 'changes' array of field/operation/value objects and a provider enum. The description adds no meaning for 'provider' beyond the schema, and nothing about which fields are valid targets for 'set'/'remove', the 25-item cap, or the field naming convention. It does at least imply the changes target a settings object, but that is thin compensation for a completely 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?
The description gives a specific verb+resource pair ('Preview a visibility_contact_settings mutation'), which separates it from siblings like preview_profile_update or preview_resume_update that target other resources. It loses a point because 'visibility_contact_settings' is unexplained jargon rather than a plain-language statement of what is being previewed (contact visibility settings).
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?
It states a real precondition: the tool is disabled by default and only usable when the provider advertises an approved mutation capability. However, it never says how to verify that condition (the sibling discover_provider_capabilities is the obvious candidate) and never states the relationship to execute_confirmed_mutation — i.e. that preview must precede confirmation. Usage is implied rather than spelled out.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.