Scan any text for sensitive data before posting. Identify private information without creating a draft, ensuring content is safe to publish.
Check if content contains sensitive data without creating a draft. Useful for quick checks before writing a post.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| text | Yes | Text to check for sensitive content |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It usefully states that the tool does not create a draft, implying a non-mutating check, but it does not describe the output format, potential errors, or what 'sensitive data' detection entails.
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?
Two short sentences with no filler. The core behavior and usage context are front-loaded, and every phrase earns its place.
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 single-parameter check tool with no output schema, the description is mostly complete: it states what is checked, that no draft is created, and when it is useful. It could be more explicit about the return value or side effects, but the simplicity of the tool limits the gap.
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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description's 'content' aligns with the 'text' parameter, and the schema already describes it as 'Text to check for sensitive content', so the description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond that.
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 a specific verb ('Check') and resource ('content') with a clear goal ('contains sensitive data'), and explicitly states 'without creating a draft', which differentiates it from sibling write tools like draft_post and publish_post.
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 phrase 'Useful for quick checks before writing a post' provides clear contextual guidance on when to use the tool. It implies a pre-write validation step and the 'without creating a draft' language distinguishes it from draft creation tools, though it does not name alternatives explicitly.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.