Upload a CV to redact email, phone, and physical address, creating a sanitized, PII-masked version.
Upload a CV and produce a sanitized, PII-masked version (redacts email, phone, physical address).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| file_path | Yes | Path to resume file to redact. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it only covers the redaction scope. It does not say whether the original file is modified or preserved, where the sanitized output goes, whether authentication is required, or what the tool returns — all important for an upload/mutation-style tool.
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 redundant clauses; the action and the redaction scope are both stated compactly and every element earns its place.
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?
For a one-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the input action and redaction behavior but omits the return value and output-format details the agent needs to chain it with follow-up tools. Adequate but with a clear gap.
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% for the single file_path parameter, so the schema already carries the parameter semantics. The description adds nothing about accepted formats or path conventions, making the baseline 3 appropriate here.
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 gives a specific verb pair (upload + produce) and a precisely scoped resource: a PII-masked CV with the redaction targets enumerated in parentheses (email, phone, physical address). This clearly separates it from siblings like civify_parse_cv or civify_tailor_cv, which handle the same CV artifact for different purposes.
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?
There is no when-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives, despite several siblings operating on the same CV (parse_cv, tailor_cv, score_ats). The agent must infer from the name alone that this is the privacy/sanitization path rather than the generic parsing path.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.