Inspect outbound agent data and destination before transmission; 0.002 USDC.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| policy | No | ||
| payload | Yes | ||
| destination | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / examplesAdded value: +[
+ {
+ "destination": {
+ "host": "api.example"
+ },
+ "payload": {
+ "query": "public filings"
+ },
+ "policy": {
+ "allowed_hosts": [
+ "api.example"
+ ],
+ "max_bytes": 65536
+ }
+ }
+]Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the call is paid (0.002 USDC), which is genuine added context, but never says whether the inspection blocks, warns, or merely reports, nor what happens when a policy is violated. For a gating-style preflight tool this is a significant gap.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the purpose leads and the cost follows. Efficient, though the semicolon-joined price is a slight structural jolt.
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?
This is a complex tool with three parameters, nested objects, a policy evaluation semantic, and no annotations. The output schema covers return values, but the description does nothing to explain the policy/payload/destination interaction or enforcement behavior, leaving the agent under-equipped.
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 loosely maps to 'data' (payload) and 'destination' but omits the third parameter (policy) entirely and gives no syntax, structure, or meaning for any of the nested objects.
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 (inspect) and resource (outbound agent data and destination) plus the timing constraint (before transmission), so the agent understands the core operation. However, it never distinguishes itself from adjacent preflight siblings such as secret_redaction_preflight or counterparty_risk_preflight, leaving the agent to infer the boundary.
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 phrase 'before transmission' implies when to invoke it, giving an implied trigger point. But there is no guidance on when NOT to use it, no named alternative among the many preflight siblings, and no stated prerequisite conditions.
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.