Check text for profanity and unsafe content, returning a 0–100 safety score and recommended action to guide moderation decisions.
Validate content with a safety score (0-100) and action recommendation
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| text | Yes | The content to validate | |
| context | No | ||
| strictness | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the return shape (safety score 0-100 and action recommendation), but does not state whether validation is read-only, how strictness or context affect behavior, what the action recommendation values mean, or any rate or permission constraints.
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 front-loaded sentence that communicates the core purpose and output without filler. It is appropriately concise, though it sacrifices necessary detail for brevity.
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 3-parameter validation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It gives a partial view of return values but omits parameter semantics, usage guidance, and behavioral details needed to invoke it correctly against similar sibling tools.
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 only 33%, with only 'text' described. The description does not explain the 'context' or 'strictness' parameters, and while strictness has an enum, its behavioral impact is undocumented. The description adds almost no parameter meaning beyond the schema.
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 states a clear verb and resource: 'Validate content', and adds that it returns a safety score and action recommendation. However, it does not distinguish this tool from nearby siblings such as check_profanity, check_prompt_injection, scan_pii, or analyze_context.
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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like check_profanity or scan_pii, nor any stated preconditions or exclusions. The agent must infer usage entirely from the tool name and sibling list.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.