Masks sensitive PII like emails, phone numbers, IBANs, IPs, and tax IDs in text and generates a local token map for zero-leakage prompt forwarding.
Masks sensitive PII (emails, phones, IBANs, IPs, tax IDs) from text and generates a local token_map for zero-leakage prompt forwarding.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| text | Yes | The input text to mask |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that a token_map is generated and that it is local (a state/side-effect disclosure beyond the schema), which hints at reversibility via scrub_unmask_text. It does not state whether the original text is mutated or returned, permissions needed, or what the response contains.
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?
A single sentence, front-loaded with the verb and scope, with no filler. Every clause earns its place by naming the PII types and the token_map output.
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 one-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the action, the masked data classes, and the notable side output (token_map). The main remaining gap is that return values are not described, though the token_map mention partly compensates.
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?
Only one parameter, and the schema already documents it at 100% coverage ('The input text to mask'). The description's PII enumeration adds context about what the input is scanned for but no syntax or format guidance beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.
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 (masks) and resource (text) and enumerates the PII classes targeted, plus the secondary effect of producing a token_map. It implicitly contrasts with scrub_anonymize_json (text vs JSON) but never names any sibling explicitly, so differentiation 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?
The phrase 'for zero-leakage prompt forwarding' implies the context of use, which is better than nothing. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use versus scrub_anonymize_json or scrub_audit_risk guidance, and no when-not-to-use conditions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.