Declare re-identification risk for synthetic or transformed data by specifying the risk level, assessor, method, and mitigations applied.
Declare re-identification risk for transformed or synthetic data.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| risk | Yes | ||
| assessedBy | Yes | ||
| assessmentMethod | No | ||
| mitigationsApplied | 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?
With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only describes the action ('Declare') without indicating side effects, whether it overwrites existing declarations, required permissions, or reversibility. The scope qualifier adds some context but not enough.
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 a single, focused sentence without redundant language. It is front-loaded with the key verb and object, making it easy to scan. However, more details could be added without harming conciseness.
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 governance/risk context, multiple parameters, and total absence of annotations or output schema, this one-sentence description is insufficient. It does not explain the risk scale, the meaning of 'declared' risk, or what happens after declaration, making it inadequate for an agent to fully understand the tool's impact.
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?
The input schema has four parameters with 0% description coverage, and the description fails to explain any of them. Although parameter names like 'risk' and 'assessedBy' are somewhat self-explanatory, the description does not compensate for the low coverage, leaving ambiguous choices such as 'mitigated' vs 'low' or the format of 'mitigationsApplied'.
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 with a specific verb 'Declare' and a distinct resource 're-identification risk' scoped to 'transformed or synthetic data'. This unambiguously differentiates it from sibling tools like create_derivation_receipt or check_aggregate_constraints.
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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, conditions, or complementary tools, leaving the agent to infer applicability.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.