Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

OrgGen AI

by ai.orggen
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

mark_field_pii

Destructive

Sets or clears the personal-data (PII) flag on one existing lineage link: isPii: true flags it, isPii: false removes the flag. Nothing else on the link changes (endpoints, transformLogic, notes are kept). The flag is governance metadata shown on the lineage arrow of the canvas; it does not mask or alter any data. It flags a lineage link, not an entity field: the PII classes of the table's own fields live in update_entity's kindMetadata.piiFields. The link must already exist: link_field_lineage creates one (and can set isPii at creation), delete_field_lineage removes one. REFUSED with an error, nothing written, on an unknown lineageId. Idempotent: sending the current value succeeds and changes nothing.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
isPiiYestrue = flag the link as personal data, false = remove the flag
lineageIdYesID of the lineage link to tag (the `id` given to link_field_lineage when it was traced)
expectedProjectIdNoUUID of the project targeted by THIS call. ACTUALLY targets this project instead of the session project. Refused without changing anything if access is not granted.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / isPii / description
      Added value: +"true = flag the link as personal data, false = remove the flag"
    • changedInput schema / properties / lineageId / description
      Previous value: -"ID of the lineage link to tag"New value: +"ID of the lineage link to tag (the `id` given to link_field_lineage when it was traced)"
  2. Changed2 schema fields changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / expectedProjectId / description
      Previous value: -"UUID du projet visé par CET appel. Cible RÉELLEMENT ce projet au lieu du projet de session. Refusé sans rien modifier si l'accès n'est pas accordé."New value: +"UUID of the project targeted by THIS call. ACTUALLY targets this project instead of the session project. Refused without changing anything if access is not granted."
    • changedInput schema / properties / lineageId / description
      Previous value: -"ID du lien lineage à tagger"New value: +"ID of the lineage link to tag"
  3. First observed

TDQS

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, and the description adds non-obvious behavior beyond that: only the flag mutates while endpoints/transformLogic/notes are preserved, the flag is governance metadata that does not mask or alter data, unknown lineageId is refused with nothing written, and repeated identical calls are no-ops.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The action, its scope, and the sibling routing are front-loaded in the first two sentences, and the remaining clauses (refusal, idempotency) each add distinct value. It is dense and slightly list-like, but there is no filler.

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?

For a three-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers scope, side effects, error behavior, idempotency, and sibling routing. An agent has everything needed to decide and call correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description goes further by clarifying that lineageId must reference an existing link and that isPii is link-scoped governance metadata rather than entity-field PII. expectedProjectId is left to the schema, which fully documents it.

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?

First sentence gives a specific verb (sets/clears) and resource (PII flag on a lineage link), plus the exact parameter effect (isPii true/false). It explicitly disambiguates from update_entity's kindMetadata.piiFields, so an agent cannot confuse it with field-level PII tagging.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

States the precondition (link must already exist), names the alternatives (link_field_lineage to create, delete_field_lineage to remove), and explains the update_entity vs mark_field_pii split. Refusal and idempotency behavior are spelled out, leaving nothing to inference.

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

All OrgGen AI toolsInspect
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