RChilli

Resume Redaction

redact_resume

Read-onlyIdempotent

Redacts personally identifiable information from candidate profiles to support anonymized review, bias-aware screening, compliance workflows, and audit logs. Configurable redaction scope. Idempotent.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`filename`	No	Optional original filename (e.g. 'resume.pdf'). Defaults to 'inline_resume.txt'; '.txt' is appended if missing.
`jsondata`	No	Pre-parsed resume JSON string (skips re-parsing when provided).
`masktype`	No	How masked fields render — 'x-value' (default, replaces with XXXXXXXXX) or 'null-value' (removes the field entirely).	x-value
`maskfields`	No	Fields to redact/hide — JSON array or comma-separated string, e.g. ["Name","Email","PhoneNumber"] or "Name, Email, Phone". When omitted, the server's default redaction set is applied.
`resume_text`	No	Required. Complete, verbatim plain-text of the resume/CV — every line as in the original. Do NOT summarise or base64-encode; pass raw text.
`abbreviation`	No	Set True to enable abbreviation mode globally.
`abbfieldcolor`	No	Hex colour for abbreviation highlights.
`highlightcolor`	No	Hex colour to highlight redacted regions (e.g. '#FFFF00').
`abbreviationfields`	No	Fields to abbreviate rather than mask — JSON array or comma-separated string (e.g. 'Name' -> 'J.D.').

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed2 schema fields changedOct 24, 2026

removedInput schema / properties / subuserid

Removed value: -{
-  "default": "",
-  "description": "Sub-user identifier for multi-tenant isolation.",
-  "title": "Subuserid",
-  "type": "string"
-}

removedInput schema / properties / userkey

Removed value: -{
-  "default": "",
-  "description": "RChilli API userkey. Leave blank to use the authenticated session key.",
-  "title": "Userkey",
-  "type": "string"
-}

First observedJun 19, 2026

TDQS

B3.4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, and the description merely restates 'Idempotent' rather than adding context. It does not explain what the call returns (masked text vs. file), whether the original content is preserved, or how masking interacts with the optional jsondata/resume_text inputs.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core action and use cases. The trailing fragments 'Configurable redaction scope. Idempotent.' are low-cost but the idempotency claim duplicates the annotation, slightly wasting space.

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

Completeness3/5

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

For a 9-parameter tool with no output schema, the description should say what comes back (redacted resume text, filename, highlight metadata) and note that resume_text is the required payload. Those gaps leave the agent guessing about the response shape.

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%, so every one of the 9 parameters is already documented in the schema. The description's only contribution is the generic phrase 'Configurable redaction scope,' which does not add meaning beyond maskfields/masktype/abbreviationfields.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb+resource: redacts PII from candidate profiles/resumes. That is clearly separable from siblings like extract_resume_data or detect_bias. It stops short of naming a sibling it must not be confused with, 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.

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

Lists downstream scenarios (anonymized review, bias-aware screening, compliance, audit logs) which imply when to call it, but gives no explicit 'use this instead of X' routing and no prerequisites, such as whether extract_resume_data must run first or how this relates to detect_resume_suspicion.

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

All RChilli 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?