Run a task through the Intent Cloak and return answers, utility, prices and the signed exposure receipt. Same billing as POST /cloak.
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": "cloak_run"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| task | No | ||
| cloaked | No | ||
| task_id | No | ||
| provider_kind | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It mentions return values and billing but omits critical details: whether the operation is mutating, what permissions are required, how task_id affects idempotency, or what 'cloaked' and 'provider_kind' do. This is insufficient for a complex task-running tool.
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?
The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by return/billing context. It is appropriately sized and wastes little space, though it could be slightly more informative without becoming verbose.
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?
Given the lack of annotations, 0% schema description coverage, nested object parameter, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lists return items but does not explain parameters, side effects, or security requirements, leaving significant gaps for an agent to call the tool correctly.
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% and the description provides no explanation of any parameter. It does not describe the structure of the nested 'task' object, the meaning of 'cloaked', the role of 'task_id', or the distinction between 'exploitative' and 'neutral' in 'provider_kind'.
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 states a clear verb and resource: 'Run a task through the Intent Cloak' and lists what it returns. However, it does not distinguish this tool from its siblings exposure_receipt and verify_receipt, leaving some ambiguity about its unique role.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the alternatives. The only contextual note is 'Same billing as POST /cloak,' which does not help an agent choose between cloak_run, exposure_receipt, and verify_receipt.
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.