Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
tamperlens-mcp

tamperlens-mcp

by haruodev
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

check_redaction

Ensure PDF redactions truly remove sensitive text by detecting plain drawn rectangles and unapplied redaction marks. Use before filing or releasing a document.

Instructions

Check whether a PDF's redactions actually removed anything. Covering text with a black box hides it from a reader and removes nothing from the file, so the words stay extractable. This reads paint order to catch a plain drawn rectangle — which carries no redaction annotation at all and is the failure behind most published redaction leaks — and separately catches redaction marks that were never applied. Use this before a document is filed or released.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "check_redaction"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
urlNohttp:/https: URL to fetch the PDF from. The fetch runs LOCALLY, over this machine's own network (not from the Tamperlens server), and only the bytes are sent on. Only http/https; redirects re-checked; max 10 MB, enforced on the bytes received. Give this OR path, not both.
pathNoAbsolute path to the PDF on this machine. Max 10 MB. Give this OR url, not both.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed3 schema fields changedv1.35.0
    • changedInput schema / properties / path / description
      Previous value: -"Absolute path to the PDF on this machine. Max 10 MB."New value: +"Absolute path to the PDF on this machine. Max 10 MB. Give this OR url, not both."
    • addedInput schema / properties / url
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "http:/https: URL to fetch the PDF from. The fetch runs LOCALLY, over this machine's own network (not from the Tamperlens server), and only the bytes are sent on. Only http/https; redirects re-checked; max 10 MB, enforced on the bytes received. Give this OR path, not both.",
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • removedInput schema / required
      Removed value: -[
-  "path"
-]
  2. First observedv1.31.0

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses how the check works (reads paint order), what it catches (plain rectangles and unapplied redaction marks), and a key security-relevant limitation of visual redaction. It could go further by describing expected output or side effects, but as a read-oriented check, the behavior is substantially transparent.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is only a few sentences but packs in purpose, diagnostic mechanism, a common failure scenario, and a usage reminder. Every sentence contributes, and the primary purpose is front-loaded.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The description plus the comprehensive input schema give an agent both selection and invocation information: what it does, what failure it detects, who should call it, and what parameters are needed. It lacks an explicit statement of the return value, and it does not disambiguate how this complements inspect_document or triage_document, but this is otherwise complete enough for effective use.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with detailed descriptions for both url and path already included. The tool description adds no additional parameter-level meaning beyond clarifying that a PDF is the subject of the check. Baseline 3 applies because the schema does the heavy lifting.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb and resource: "Check whether a PDF's redactions actually removed anything." It goes further by explaining the two distinct failure modes it catches (plain drawn rectangles and never-applied redaction marks), which clearly distinguishes it from the more generic sibling tools like inspect_document.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description gives clear usage context: "Use this before a document is filed or released." It also explains why that timing matters by describing the common visual-redaction failure. However, it does not explicitly contrast this with sibling tools or state when to choose one of the other document tools instead.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server

Other Tools