rai_redteam_payloadsGenerate adversarial attack payloads to probe AI models for security vulnerabilities, including prompt injection, jailbreak, and data leakage.
Return adversarial attack payloads to probe an AI model for security vulnerabilities. Categories: prompt_injection, jailbreak, data_leakage, role_confusion, delimiter_attack.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| categories | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.2.6Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that output is offensive-security payload content, which is meaningful context, but it says nothing about auth requirements, rate limits, or what happens when no categories are supplied.
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?
Two short sentences, front-loaded with the outcome and followed by the supported categories. The category list is slightly redundant against the schema enum, but it costs little and reads efficiently.
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?
There is no output schema, so the description carries the return-value burden; it identifies the payload content and category space but not the shape or volume of the response. Combined with annotations that cover the read-only/idempotent profile, it is adequate for a simple one-parameter lookup, with only the default-behavior gap remaining.
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% and there is a single optional 'categories' array parameter. The description enumerates the same values the schema already lists in the item enum, so it confirms the valid set but adds no new semantics — notably it does not state that omitting the parameter returns all categories.
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 names a specific verb and resource — 'Return adversarial attack payloads' — and states the purpose ('to probe an AI model for security vulnerabilities'), which separates it from analysis-oriented siblings like rai_redteam_analyze. It stops short of explicitly naming a sibling or contrasting with one, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.
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 stated purpose ('probe an AI model for security vulnerabilities') implies when the tool is relevant, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance and no alternative tool is named. An agent must infer that this is the payload-source tool and rai_redteam_analyze handles the results.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.