Free-tier prompt safety check. Analyzes text for prompt injection patterns and PII (credit card numbers, Brazilian CPF, US SSN, email, phone, passwords). Returns a safety assessment with specific warnings. No authentication required.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| text | Yes | The text or prompt to check for safety issues (max 50,000 characters) |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable context: 'Free-tier', 'No authentication required', and specifics about PII types (credit cards, CPF, SSN, email, phone, passwords). No contradictions.
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 sentences, front-loaded with 'Free-tier prompt safety check', and every word adds value. It is appropriately concise with no redundancy.
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 one-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers the essentials: what it analyzes, what it returns (assessment with warnings), and the no-auth requirement. No significant gaps remain.
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 coverage is 100% with a clear parameter description. The tool description enhances this by listing the specific PII categories and injection patterns checked, giving the agent more semantic understanding beyond the schema's generic 'text or prompt' description.
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 uses a specific verb ('analyzes') and resource ('text for prompt injection patterns and PII'), clearly stating the tool's function. It also differentiates itself from siblings like thinkneo_detect_injection and thinkneo_check_pii_international by covering both categories in one free-tier check.
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?
The description indirectly indicates usage context (free-tier, no authentication, combined injection/PII check) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. Sibling tools like thinkneo_detect_injection or thinkneo_check_pii_international are not mentioned, so the guidance is implied rather than explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
