Redacted Context MCP

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Doctor

redctx_doctor

Read-onlyIdempotent

Confirm which redaction policy is active by reporting the loaded config, mode, detector profile, and counts of clients, aliases, and allow terms, without printing any terms.

Instructions

Report the active redaction setup as key: value lines: whether a config file was loaded, mode, detector profile, salt source, counts of configured clients, organizations, people, other terms, alias groups and aliases, and allow terms, exclusion counts, and any additional detectors by name and version. It prints counts only, never the terms, and reads no context files. Use it to confirm which policy is in effect; use redctx_audit to actually test redaction and containment. If the local policy cannot be loaded, this tool is blocked like every other one until the operator repairs the config.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

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.

Changed6 schema fields changedv0.10.0Oct 15, 2026

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

A4.8/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive annotations, the description discloses non-obvious traits: it emits counts only and never the terms, it reads no context files, and it is blocked when local policy fails to load. These are the exact facts an agent needs to avoid misreading output or mishandling a failure.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, then privacy and failure behavior, then the alternative. The first sentence's long enumeration of counts is slightly dense but every clause is load-bearing; there is no filler.

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?

Covers purpose, output shape (even though an output schema exists), privacy guarantee, failure mode, and sibling routing for a zero-parameter diagnostic tool. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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

Parameters4/5

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

The tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description correctly implies a no-argument invocation and spends its space on output and routing instead of inventing parameter detail.

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 (report) and resource (the active redaction setup), then enumerates exactly what is reported: config load status, mode, detector profile, salt source, entity/alias/allow-term counts, exclusions, and detector names/versions. It explicitly contrasts itself with the sibling `redctx_audit`, so an agent can route correctly without opening either 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 an explicit when-to-use ('confirm which policy is in effect') and an explicit alternative for a different goal ('use `redctx_audit` to actually test redaction and containment'). It also states the precondition/failure mode: if the local policy cannot be loaded, this tool is blocked like every other one.

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

Deploy Server