Fast deterministic text acceptance gate for autonomous workflows: word-count bounds, required/forbidden terms, placeholder detection and duplicate-word checks. [PAID: $0.025 USDC per call via x402]
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| text | Yes | ||
| max_words | No | ||
| min_words | No | ||
| required_terms | No | ||
| forbidden_terms | 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 carries full behavior burden. It usefully discloses determinism ('deterministic'), speed, and commercial terms (paid, $0.025 USDC per call via x402), which an agent cannot get from structured fields. It does not say what the tool returns (boolean? score? reason?) or how failures are surfaced, which is the central behavior for a gate.
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?
One tight sentence front-loads the purpose, then lists capabilities, then appends pricing in a bracketed tag. Zero filler; every clause earns its place.
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 paid, annotation-free, no-output-schema tool with 0% param documentation, the description covers capabilities and cost but omits return semantics and failure/rejection behavior, and gives no hint how to disambiguate it from its near-namesake sibling.
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%, so the description must compensate. It names word-count bounds and required/forbidden terms, which map onto four of the five parameters, but it never explains the required 'text' input, and 'placeholder detection' and 'duplicate-word checks' have no corresponding parameters — it is unclear whether these are always-on or configurable.
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 ('text acceptance gate') and enumerates the exact checks performed (word-count bounds, required/forbidden terms, placeholder detection, duplicate-word checks), so an agent knows precisely what it does. It does not, however, differentiate itself from the sibling 'text-quality-gate-ZM73Rg', which an agent could easily confuse with this tool.
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?
'for autonomous workflows' gives a usage context and 'acceptance gate' implies it is used to pass/fail text before proceeding. There is no explicit when-to-use vs alternative guidance and no mention of when this gate should be skipped or what to do on rejection.
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.
