mistral_moderate_chatCheck chat messages for safety issues to detect harmful or policy-violating content before it reaches users or downstream models.
Check chat messages for safety issues.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| model | No | Model | mistral-moderation-latest |
| messages | Yes | Messages to moderate |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds the semantic purpose (safety checking) but does not disclose output format, rate limits, auth needs, or other behavioral traits beyond what annotations provide.
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 short sentence that is front-loaded with the core action and resource. No wasted words or redundant restatements.
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?
The tool has a fully documented input schema and rich annotations covering safety, but no output schema. The description does not explain the return values (e.g., moderation categories or scores) or when to prefer this over mistral_moderate_text, leaving some gaps for correct invocation.
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 100%, so both parameters (model and messages) are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the structured schema already provides, matching the baseline of 3.
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 states a specific verb ('Check') and resource ('chat messages') for a safety purpose. It distinguishes from the sibling mistral_moderate_text by focusing on chat messages, but does not name or contrast with that sibling explicitly.
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?
No when-to-use guidance, no conditions, and no mention of the sibling mistral_moderate_text. An agent must infer when to call this versus other moderation or completion tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.