Verifies whether merging data from two sources is permitted, preventing prohibited inferences under HIPAA, COPPA, and GDPR Article 9.
Check if combining data from two sources is permitted. Prevents prohibited inferences (HIPAA, COPPA, GDPR Art 9).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| reason | Yes | ||
| otherSourceId | Yes | ||
| regulatoryBasis | No | ||
| forbiddenSourceIds | No | ||
| otherSourceClasses | No | ||
| forbiddenSourceClasses | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v4.0.0Input schema / $schemaPrevious value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"Input schema / additionalPropertiesRemoved value: -falsev2.8.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions that the tool prevents prohibited inferences and lists regulations, but it does not disclose return format, side effects, or error behavior. It is unclear whether this is purely read-only or if it blocks operations.
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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and includes regulatory context without any fluff. Every word 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?
Given the tool has six parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description is too sparse. It does not explain expected return values, parameter usage, or behavior when a combination is not permitted, leaving the agent with significant gaps.
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 the description does not explain any of the six parameters. Parameter names like otherSourceId and forbiddenSourceIds are weakly self-describing, but 'reason' and 'otherSourceClasses' remain ambiguous. The description gives only a vague hint that two sources are involved.
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 checks whether combining data from two sources is permitted, with the regulatory context preventing prohibited inferences. It distinguishes from sibling check tools by specifying the combination scenario and relevant regulations.
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 implies the tool is used when combining data from two sources, but it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives such as check_purpose_permitted or check_aggregate_constraints. The context is clear but exclusions are absent.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.