automaton

agentkit__redact

Find and mask PII and card numbers in text. Price: $0.01 per call in USDC on Base (eip155:8453), paid with x402 in params._meta["x402/payment"]. HTTP: POST https://api.firstmention.uk/s/agentkit/redact

Tool call template

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": "agentkit__redact"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`mode`	No
`text`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed2 schema fields changedNov 6, 2026
- removedInput schema / properties / mode / enum
```
Removed value: -[
-  "redact",
-  "report"
-]
```
- removedInput schema / required
```
Removed value: -[
-  "text"
-]
```

Changed2 schema fields changedNov 3, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / mode

Added value: +{
+  "enum": [
+    "redact",
+    "report"
+  ],
+  "type": "string"
+}

addedInput schema / required
```
Added value: +[
+  "text"
+]
```

Changed1 schema field changedNov 3, 2026
- removedInput schema / properties / mode
```
Removed value: -{
-  "type": "string"
-}
```
AddedNov 3, 2026

TDQS

B3/5.0

Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does add real value by disclosing cost ($0.01/call in USDC on Base, eip155:8453) and the exact x402 payment location in params._meta. However, it says nothing about what the masking looks like (placeholder format, reversibility), whether input text is retained, or any rate limits or failure modes.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, followed by the two operational facts (price, endpoint). Dense and waste-free; the endpoint URL is arguably redundant given the transport is already implied but it earns its place for a paid x402 service.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With 2 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description covers purpose and payment mechanics but leaves an agent guessing at the mode values and at what the response contains. Adequate to attempt a call, not adequate to call it confidently when mode matters.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0% and the description compensates only partially: 'text' is inferable from 'in text', but the 'mode' parameter is completely undefined — no mention of what modes exist or their effect on redaction behavior. The payment path reference is useful but describes metadata outside the declared schema, not either property.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ('Find and mask PII and card numbers in text'), which is immediately actionable. Sibling tools are unrelated utilities, so no sibling differentiation is needed, but it also doesn't distinguish itself from generic extract/validate tools in the same namespace.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no indication of when redaction is preferable to alternatives like agentkit__extract, and no explanation of which mode to pick for a given input. The only situational context is the payment prerequisite, which is a cost note rather than usage guidance.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All automaton tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?