Anonymix MCP

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It clearly describes the tool's behavior: it takes anonymized text with pseudonyms and a mapping_id, then returns text with original values and a count of replacements. It doesn't mention error conditions, rate limits, or authentication needs, but covers the core operation adequately for a tool with no annotations.

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 description is efficiently structured: a purpose statement, usage context, parameter explanations, and return values—all in four concise sentences. Every sentence adds value with no wasted words, and key information is front-loaded.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (2 parameters, no annotations, but with output schema), the description is complete. It explains the purpose, usage context, parameter meanings, and return values. The output schema handles the return structure, so the description doesn't need to detail that further, making it well-rounded for the context.

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 compensate. It provides clear semantic meaning for both parameters: 'text: Anonymizovaný text (nebo text zpracovaný Claudem) s pseudonymy jako [OSOBA_1]' and 'mapping_id: UUID vrácené funkcí anonymize_text nebo anonymize_file'. This adds significant value beyond the bare schema, though it doesn't specify format details like UUID structure.

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?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Obnoví původní text nahrazením pseudonymů originálními hodnotami' (Restores original text by replacing pseudonyms with original values). It specifies the verb (restore/replace), resource (text with pseudonyms), and distinguishes from siblings like anonymize_text and anonymize_file by being the inverse operation.

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 description explicitly states when to use it: 'Používá se po zpracování anonymizovaného textu' (Used after processing anonymized text). It also references specific alternatives by naming the functions that produce the required mapping_id: 'anonymize_text nebo anonymize_file' (anonymize_text or anonymize_file), providing clear context for usage.

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