Configure output masking for MCP server responses to protect sensitive data. Set enablement, choose masking strategy, and define custom patterns.
Configure content masking for all MCP outputs
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| action | No | Configuration action | get |
| enabled | No | Enable or disable output masking | |
| strategy | No | Masking strategy to use | |
| customPatterns | No | Custom patterns to mask |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate the tool is not read-only and not destructive, so the bar for additional behavioral disclosure is lower. The description adds that masking is configured globally, but does not explain that 'reset' may restore defaults, that 'get' is a read-only action, or that settings affect subsequent MCP outputs.
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 wasted words. It immediately conveys the verb, the resource, and the scope.
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?
With a complete schema and annotations, the description is reasonably sufficient for identifying the tool. Gaps remain around practical behavior, such as what 'get' returns and what 'reset' actually resets, especially since there is no output schema or explicit usage guidance.
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% and all parameters have descriptions, so the description does not need to repeat parameter details. However, it also does not clarify the semantics of the strategy values (e.g., 'environment' vs 'placeholder'), which would add value.
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 states a specific action ('Configure') and resource ('content masking') with an explicit scope ('all MCP outputs'), making the tool's purpose clear. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like apply_basic_content_masking or generate_content_masking, but the config terminology and global scope hint at the distinction.
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 scope of all MCP outputs implies this is for global configuration, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor mention of alternatives. An agent would infer usage from the tool name and sibling names rather than from direct instructions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.