Restore original values in all files inside a directory using a configured swap session, reversing prior masking to recover real data.
Unmask all files in a directory using a swap session.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| directory_path | Yes | ||
| file_extensions | No | ||
| session_name_or_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not explain the effects of unmasking files, whether files are modified in place, whether a valid swap session is required or consumed, or what side effects may occur. 'Unmask' implies mutation, but the consequences and prerequisites are unstated.
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 with no filler or redundant phrasing. It is efficient, 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?
The tool has three parameters and no annotations, but the description only covers a generic action. It omits the optional file_extensions behavior, session requirements, and any operational context. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to explain return values, but the behavioral and prerequisite gaps remain significant.
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%, so the description must compensate by explaining parameters. It indirectly covers 'directory_path' and 'session_name_or_id' through the phrase 'directory using a swap session,' but it completely ignores 'file_extensions' and gives no format, behavior, or filtering details for any parameter.
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 clearly states the operation ('Unmask all files'), the target resource ('in a directory'), and the mechanism ('using a swap session'). This distinguishes it from siblings like phantomswap_unmask_text and phantomswap_mask_directory through verb and scope.
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 explicit guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as phantomswap_unmask_text or phantomswap_mask_directory. The wording implies directory-level unmasking, but it never states when this is the right choice or when another sibling should be used.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.