Redacted Context MCP

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Audit

redctx_audit

Read-onlyIdempotent

Run safety checks on a redacted-context setup to verify symlink, vault salt, private-term, secret-leak, and write settings are secure.

Instructions

Run safety checks and report one line per check, <category>: <name> <STATUS> <detail>, with STATUS PASS, WARN, FAIL or NOT_TESTED (or JSON with format). Checks cover symlinks and reparse points under the root (listed by opaque id), the vault salt, configured private terms and broad allow entries, a synthetic secret-leak test of the redactor, and whether controlled writes are enabled. Use it to verify the setup is safe; use redctx_doctor for a quick count-only summary that scans nothing. It walks the whole root, never prints sensitive terms, and returns the full report with isError: true when any check FAILs.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`format`	No	`text` (default): one line per check, followed by up to 10 opaque refs for flagged entries. `json`: `{"checks": [{"category", "name", "status", "detail", "refs"?}]}`.	text

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`text`	Yes	The tool output, identical to the text content block and already redacted: sensitive values appear as deterministic `[CATEGORY_<hex>]` placeholders (forms declared as aliases of one entity share its hex and add a form suffix, `[CATEGORY_<hex>.<form>]`) and files as `@p_<id>` references. When the result has `isError: true`, this is a fixed error message instead, such as a limit error or the notice that context access is blocked until the operator repairs the local redaction config.
`receipt`	Yes	Redaction statistics for this call only; never contains original values.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed7 schema fields changedv0.10.0Oct 15, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / format / description

Added value: +"`text` (default): one line per check, followed by up to 10 opaque refs for flagged entries. `json`: `{\"checks\": [{\"category\", \"name\", \"status\", \"detail\", \"refs\"?}]}`."

addedOutput schema / description

Added value: +"Structured copy of every tool result: the output text plus a receipt of what redaction did."

addedOutput schema / properties / receipt / description

Added value: +"Redaction statistics for this call only; never contains original values."

addedOutput schema / properties / receipt / properties / counts_by_category / description

Added value: +"Placeholders substituted while producing this result (content and paths), keyed by category such as `PERSON`, `EMAIL` or `SECRET`; categories with none are omitted."

addedOutput schema / properties / receipt / properties / detector_profile / description

Added value: +"Active built-in detector profile: `default`, or `extended`, which adds more identifier types and prompt-injection markers."

addedOutput schema / properties / receipt / properties / detectors

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Present only when the server runs additional local detectors: one entry per detector, in load order.",
+  "items": {
+    "properties": {
+      "name": {
+        "description": "Detector name.",
+        "type": "string"
+      },
+      "nominated": {
+        "description": "Distinct values this detector nominated during the call; every occurrence of each is redacted.",
+        "type": "integer"
+      },
+      "positional": {
+        "description": "Nominated spans redacted only at their own position, because they were too long or exceeded the per-text value budget.",
+        "type": "integer"
+      },
+      "version": {
+        "description": "Detector version string.",
+        "type": "string"
+      }
+    },
+    "required": [
+      "name",
+      "version",
+      "nominated",
+      "positional"
+    ],
+    "type": "object"
+  },
+  "type": "array"
+}

addedOutput schema / properties / text / description

Added value: +"The tool output, identical to the text content block and already redacted: sensitive values appear as deterministic `[CATEGORY_<hex>]` placeholders (forms declared as aliases of one entity share its hex and add a form suffix, `[CATEGORY_<hex>.<form>]`) and files as `@p_<id>` references. When the result has `isError: true`, this is a fixed error message instead, such as a limit error or the notice that context access is blocked until the operator repairs the local redaction config."

First observedv0.4.0Jun 25, 2026

TDQS

A4.6/5.0

Behavior5/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, but the description adds context annotations cannot convey: it walks the whole root, never prints sensitive terms, lists flagged entries by opaque id only, and returns the full report with `isError: true` when any check FAILs. These privacy guarantees and error semantics go well beyond the structured fields.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The core action and output shape are front-loaded in the first clause, and every sentence carries information. It is dense and slightly long due to the enumerated check list, but there is no filler or repetition.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a read-only audit tool with a full output schema, the description supplies everything the schema cannot: scope of the scan, privacy behavior, failure semantics, and the sibling alternative. Nothing an agent needs to invoke and interpret it correctly is missing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

There is a single optional `format` enum parameter and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully documents it. The description only echoes 'or JSON with `format`' without adding syntax or defaults beyond what the schema states — baseline 3 is correct.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ('Run safety checks'), enumerates exactly what is checked (symlinks/reparse points, vault salt, private terms, allow entries, redactor secret-leak test, controlled-write status), and explicitly names the sibling `redctx_doctor` as a different behavior. An agent can distinguish it from all 13 siblings without opening a schema.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Gives explicit when-to-use ('verify the setup is safe') and names the alternative with the condition that selects it ('use `redctx_doctor` for a quick count-only summary that scans nothing'). The contrast (full scan vs. scans nothing) is exactly the routing information an agent needs.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server