tiktok_privacy_auditDetermine safety boundaries for TikTok tokens, media hosting, local files, and live publishing. Use this audit to prevent privacy violations and ensure compliant content posting.
Return token, media-hosting, local-file and live-publish safety boundaries.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| response_format | No | json |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.5Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description confirms it is a read-only operation (returns data), consistent with annotations (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false). It does not contradict annotations. However, it adds no extra behavioral context beyond what annotations already provide, such as rate limits or whether the audit is cached.
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 sentence (15 words) with no redundancy. It is concise, but the phrasing is somewhat cryptic ('safety boundaries') which slightly reduces clarity. Still, it front-loads the key action and resource.
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?
No output schema is present, so the description should explain what the returned 'safety boundaries' contain. It does not detail the structure or fields of the result. For a privacy audit tool, users need to know what kind of data (e.g., warnings, compliance status) they will receive. The description leaves this vague.
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 only parameter, 'response_format', is not explained in the description. The schema shows it's an optional enum with defaults, but the description does not clarify that this parameter controls output format (JSON vs markdown). Given the low coverage, the description should compensate.
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 returns 'safety boundaries' for various aspects (token, media-hosting, local-file, live-publish), which aligns with the title 'TikTok Privacy Audit'. It distinguishes this tool from siblings like tiktok_list_videos or tiktok_publish_video by focusing on privacy audit results. However, 'safety boundaries' is somewhat jargon and could be more explicit.
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 on when to use this tool vs alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisites, contexts, or when not to use it. With siblings like tiktok_connection_status, a user might need clarification on when to audit privacy versus check connectivity.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.