Scribase

Set masking rules

branches.masking.set

What a sanitized branch (branches.create data: "sanitized") masks. Every sanitized branch already hashes auth emails and phone numbers and removes sign-in metadata, password hashes and IP addresses; add the project's own columns as [schema.]table.column:transform (hash, null, mask or empty_json). Without rules it shows the current ones. Needs an owner or admin token. Scope: branches:write.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "branches.masking.set"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`rules`	No	The project's rules, replacing its current ones, e.g. ["profiles.full_name:mask"]
`project_id`	No	Project id. Optional: defaults to the project created or used last in this session, or the only one.
`organization_id`	No	Organization id. Optional: defaults to the token's organization, or the only one you belong to.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedNov 8, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the annotations, it discloses what is always masked by default (auth emails and phone numbers hashed; sign-in metadata, password hashes and IP addresses removed), the accepted transform vocabulary (hash, null, mask, empty_json), the auth level needed, and the notable behavior that omitting rules returns current rules rather than clearing them. The only mild tension is that the description frames the operation as "add" while the schema says the rules replace existing ones, which sits awkwardly with destructiveHint=false.

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 text is dense and front-loaded: scope of what is masked, then the rule format, then the no-rules behavior, then auth and scope. Semicolon-heavy sentences make it slightly run-on, but no sentence is filler and all carry operational information.

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

Completeness4/5

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

With no output schema, the description correctly covers the return case for an omitted rules argument, and it explains defaults, required privileges, and the transform set. It leaves open whether rules apply retroactively to an already-created branch and what the response body contains after a successful set, which is the main remaining gap for a 3-parameter mutation tool.

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 already 100%, so the baseline would be 3, but the description adds real value: it documents the rule string grammar [schema.]table.column:transform and enumerates the four valid transforms, which the schema only hints at with a single example. It also explains the optional behavior of the rules parameter (omit to read current rules) in a way the schema description does not.

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?

The description makes clear this tool configures masking rules for sanitized branches and ties them to branches.create data: "sanitized", so the resource and its scope are unambiguous against siblings like branches.create or branch.diff. The only weakness is that the opening sentence is a noun fragment ("What a sanitized branch masks") rather than an explicit verb, so the setting action is inferred from "add the project's own columns".

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

It states a prerequisite (the branch must be a sanitized branch created via branches.create data: "sanitized"), an authorization requirement (owner or admin token), a scope (branches:write), and a read path ("Without rules it shows the current ones"). It does not name an alternative sibling for inspecting rules other than by omitting the parameter, but the when-to-use context is otherwise explicit.

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

All Scribase 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?