Replace detected credential patterns with redaction markers. FREE during validation. No key, credits, wallet or preparation needed. Supply your task in input. Existing source and input limits apply.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| input | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| text | Yes | ||
| caveat | Yes | ||
| findings | Yes | ||
| limitReached | Yes | ||
| rulesVersion | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / maxPriceMicroUsdRemoved value: -{
- "description": "Optional legacy field; ignored in free mode.",
- "minimum": 0,
- "type": "integer"
-}Input schema / properties / requestIdRemoved value: -{
- "description": "Optional legacy field; ignored in free mode.",
- "type": "string"
-}Input schema / properties / maxPriceMicroUsd / descriptionPrevious value: -"Explicit maximum new debit; 0 means recovery only."New value: +"Optional legacy field; ignored in free mode."Input schema / properties / maxPriceMicroUsd / maximumRemoved value: -999999999999Input schema / properties / requestId / descriptionPrevious value: -"Persist the ID returned by agent_utilities_prepare. Reuse after uncertainty."New value: +"Optional legacy field; ignored in free mode."Input schema / properties / requestId / patternRemoved value: -"^\\d{13}_[A-Za-z0-9_-]{16,80}$"Input schema / requiredPrevious value: -[
- "input",
- "requestId",
- "maxPriceMicroUsd"
-]New value: +[
+ "input"
+]Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that source and input limits apply, which is useful context, but does not explain what patterns are matched, whether the original text is returned unmodified alongside output, or the size of the limit referenced.
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 purpose is correctly front-loaded in one tight sentence, but the promotional 'FREE during validation. No key, credits, wallet or preparation needed.' consumes half the text without helping an agent invoke the tool, and 'Supply your task in input' is vague filler.
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?
An output schema exists so return values need not be described, and annotations cover the safety profile. Still missing for a redaction tool: what counts as a credential pattern, whether output preserves surrounding text, and the concrete meaning of 'existing source and input limits'.
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?
With 0% schema description coverage the description must carry the load, but 'Supply your task in input' only restates the top-level parameter name and says nothing about the required nested 'input.text' string or its 100000-char cap. Marginal compensation for the coverage gap.
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?
States a specific verb and resource: 'Replace detected credential patterns with redaction markers'. An agent can distinguish this from the sibling security_secret_scan, though the description never names that sibling or explicitly frames redaction as the post-scan step.
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 only 'when' content is pricing/onboarding (FREE during validation, no key/credits/wallet). There is no guidance on when to use this versus security_secret_scan, or whether scanning should precede redaction. Usage must be inferred entirely from the name.
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.