Redact sensitive PII like SSNs, phone numbers, emails, and ZIP codes from text using AI.
Redact SSN, phone, email, and ZIP codes using Workers AI
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| text | Yes | Text content containing sensitive PII |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'using Workers AI' but does not clarify whether the operation is read-only, modifies input in place, returns new text, or how redaction is performed. This lack of safety and outcome details is a significant gap.
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 words. It conveys the essential action and scope efficiently, earning a maximum score for conciseness.
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?
Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description is mostly sufficient but omits expected return behavior or side effects. It does not state whether the text is returned redacted or mutated in place, which is crucial for agent usage. The lack of annotations further reduces completeness, so a middle score is appropriate.
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?
The schema covers 100% of parameters, but its description ('Text content containing sensitive PII') is vague. The tool description adds concrete meaning by specifying which types of PII (SSN, phone, email, ZIP codes) are targeted, thereby enriching the parameter's semantic beyond the schema baseline.
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 identifies the action (redact) and the target data (SSN, phone, email, ZIP codes), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools by naming alternatives or unique constraints, so it falls just short of a 5.
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 guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. The description simply states what the tool does without contextualizing its appropriate use cases, leaving the agent without direction on tool selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.