Anonymize raw SQL dump content while preserving foreign key joins and unique constraints, using deterministic HMAC-based pseudonymization.
Anonymize raw SQL dump content preserving 100% of foreign key joins and unique constraints.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| secretSalt | No | HMAC salt for deterministic pseudonymization | |
| sqlContent | Yes | Raw SQL dump content |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses a key guarantee — that foreign key joins and unique constraints are preserved 100% — which is real value beyond structured fields. However, it omits whether output is returned inline versus streamed, whether results are deterministic, and any performance or size limits, leaving significant gaps for a mutation-style tool with zero annotation coverage.
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 with the core action front-loaded and no filler. Every word earns its place, and the most important guarantee is stated immediately.
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 simple two-parameter tool with full schema coverage, the description covers purpose and the referential-integrity guarantee adequately. With no output schema and no annotations, though, it should still state what is returned (anonymized SQL text) and whether the operation is deterministic, so it is only minimally complete.
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 both parameters are already documented in the schema, and the description adds no syntax or format detail beyond them. Baseline 3 is appropriate; the mention of preserving joins hints at why determinism matters but doesn't clarify the secretSalt parameter's role.
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 pairs a specific verb (Anonymize) with a specific resource (raw SQL dump content), so an agent immediately knows what the tool does. Sibling tools are entirely unrelated domains (audits, trimming, lookups), so no sibling differentiation is required, but the description stops short of a 5 because it doesn't scope which kinds of dumps or transformations apply.
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 explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative guidance. The phrase 'raw SQL dump content' implies the input context, but an agent gets no help on prerequisites (e.g., whether a secretSalt is required for deterministic output) or on how this differs from any other processing step.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.