clickbus_privacy_auditAudit privacy defaults for street, phone, and GPS redaction, and confirm booking stays disabled until both security gates are set.
Shows redaction defaults (street/phone/GPS) and that book is off unless both gates are set.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| response_format | No | markdown |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already mark this read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive; the description adds concrete behavioral output: default redactions for street, phone, and GPS, and that 'book is off unless both gates are set'. It does not define what the two gates are, but that is a gap in detail rather than misleading behavior.
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?
One sentence, front-loaded with the main verb and content, no wasted words. It communicates the essential behavior 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?
For a read-only audit with one optional output-format parameter and no output schema, the description gives enough context about what the tool reveals and the default state of booking. It does not fully explain the 'gates' concept, but the tool is simple enough that this is a minor omission.
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 single optional response_format parameter is fully constrained by the schema's enum and default, so the parameter is self-documenting. However, the description adds no meaning about response_format or how markdown/json affect the returned audit, and schema description coverage is 0%. The schema itself carries the parameter semantics.
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 uses 'Shows redaction defaults...' to specify what the audit reports, naming concrete fields (street/phone/GPS) and the booking-gating state. It is clear about the tool's purpose, but it does not explicitly distinguish this from sibling tools such as clickbus_capabilities, relying on the tool name for differentiation.
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 use when an agent needs privacy redaction defaults or booking-gate status, but it does not state when to prefer this tool over alternatives or mention any exclusions. There is no explicit usage guidance, only contextual implication from 'Shows...'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.