Mask personal data in local TXT, MD, DOCX, or PDF documents by replacing sensitive values with pseudonyms like [KISI-1]. Detection is partial, so human review of the output is required.
Mask local TXT/MD/DOCX/PDF to plain text. Detection is partial: human review is required.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| overwrite | No | ||
| rules_path | No | ||
| output_path | No | ||
| source_path | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the important caveat that detection is partial and human review is required — genuinely useful behavioral context. But it says nothing about permissions, overwrite behavior, side effects on the source file, or whether the operation is reversible. Only the quality caveat is covered.
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, no filler, caution frontloaded after the core purpose. Efficiently sized for the information it conveys.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. But for a 4-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and 0% schema coverage, the description leaves the parameters and most behavioral characteristics undocumented. The partial-detection caveat is useful but insufficient.
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% — none of the four parameters have descriptions. The tool's description mentions no parameters at all: not source_path, output_path, rules_path, or overwrite. With low coverage the description must compensate, and it does not.
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?
States a specific verb (mask) and target resources (local TXT/MD/DOCX/PDF → plain text). However, 'mask' is ambiguous — it could mean redact sensitive data, obfuscate, or format-convert — and the description never clarifies which. It also doesn't distinguish from sibling scan_file or restore_file.
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 when-to-use guidance and no alternatives named. The hint about partial detection is a caution, not usage guidance. An agent cannot tell from the description whether this belongs before or after scan_file, or how it relates to restore_file.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.