Replaces data-handling rules for dropping, masking, renaming, or classifying fields and creates a new mapper version.
Replace the mapper rules (drop/mask/rename/classify). Creates a new mapper version.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| note | No | ||
| rules | No | ||
| params | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full behavioral burden. It does disclose one valuable trait — that a new mapper version is created rather than rules being edited in place — but it omits the destructive semantics of "replace" (what existing rules are lost), permission requirements, and whether prior versions remain recoverable. For a mutation with zero annotation coverage that is a substantial gap.
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 compact sentences with the action and the resulting side effect front-loaded; every clause carries information and there is no filler.
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?
A mutation tool with no annotations, 0% parameter coverage, and no sibling differentiation needs more than this. An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, but the missing guidance on required inputs, destructive scope, and when to prefer a targeted alternative leaves the definition incomplete for correct invocation.
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% across three parameters. The description implies the content of `rules` via the drop/mask/rename/classify list, but says nothing about the `note` field or the `params` object, nor about the structure of individual rule entries. With all defaults (nothing required), an agent has no guidance on how much it must supply.
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 names a specific verb ("Replace") and resource ("mapper rules") and enumerates the rule kinds it covers (drop/mask/rename/classify), so the agent knows what is being written. It does not, however, position itself against nearby siblings such as list_rules, check_rules, or retract_rule, so fine-grained discrimination is left to inference.
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 statement of when this tool should be used versus list_rules/check_rules/retract_rule, and no prerequisites (e.g., must rules be validated first, does this require a spec context). The word "Replace" only implies a write path; nothing tells the agent when a full replacement is preferable to a targeted retract_rule.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.