summarizeThree-bullet summary of up to 8,000 characters. Input is PII-redacted first. Returns { summary }: up to three short bullet points as one string. Price: 4 credits (1 credit = 1 CAD cent) per successful call; input that does not match the schema is rejected before billing.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| text | Yes | Text to process, 1 to 8,000 characters. Emails, phone numbers, card numbers, SINs and IPv4s are redacted before the model sees it. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Goes well past the readOnlyHint/openWorldHint annotations by disclosing PII redaction before the model sees input, the exact return shape, per-call pricing in credits, and that schema-invalid input is rejected before billing. Cost and redaction are behavioral facts an agent cannot infer from structured fields.
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?
Three short sentences, front-loaded with what the tool produces, then the return value, then billing. Nothing is redundant given that price and rejection policy carry real decision weight.
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?
No output schema exists, but the description supplies the return shape itself, plus limits, redaction behavior, and cost. Nothing an agent needs in order to call this correctly and predict its bill is missing.
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?
There is a single parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already documents the 1–8,000 character range and the specific redaction targets. The description restates the length ceiling and redaction but adds no new parameter meaning, making baseline 3 correct.
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 operation and its output shape: a three-bullet summary bounded at 8,000 characters. That is clearly distinct from neighbors like chunk-text or keywords, though it never names an alternative to differentiate itself from them.
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?
Usage is only implied by the name and the length constraint; there is no explicit statement of when to pick summarize over keywords, entity-extract, or similar text tools, and no exclusions or prerequisites beyond the input limit.
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.