Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

Catalyst evidence graph

by ai.catalystproject
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

One finding, with its evidence strength explained

get_finding
Read-onlyIdempotent

Explains one finding by its finding id: the claim, its evidence strength and what that level means, the verbatim quote, the study design and the paper, and evidence_strength_reasons, each rule that set the level in order, and what the assessment does not weigh. The finding id is 26 characters, from the id field of a find_evidence or get_findings finding, or the last part of its permalink (/e/{id}). Use it to answer why the evidence behind a finding is as strong as it is, from evidence_strength_reasons and never by guessing. To find findings, use find_evidence or get_findings; this tool takes no name. A head-to-head comparison id returns a sentence naming the page that shows the comparison, not a finding.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "finding_id": "<finding_id>"
    },
    "name": "get_finding"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
finding_idYesA 26-character finding id: the id of a finding from find_evidence or get_findings, or the last part of its permalink.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / finding_id / description
      Previous value: -"A 26-character finding id, from a permalink or get_findings."New value: +"A 26-character finding id: the id of a finding from find_evidence or get_findings, or the last part of its permalink."
  2. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedInput schema / additionalProperties
      Added value: +{}
  3. First observed

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description goes further by disclosing the return payload field-by-field and the non-obvious behavior that a comparison id yields a pointer sentence instead of a finding. It does not cover what happens for a malformed or unknown id, which is the remaining behavioral gap.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

Front-loaded with the action and the returned content before the id-sourcing instructions. Dense but every clause carries information; nothing is restated from the title alone.

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?

With no output schema, the description takes on the burden of describing the return value and does so thoroughly, plus the id derivation and the comparison-id exception. For a one-parameter lookup tool this is sufficient to call it correctly.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning: the exact 26-character shape, the two source tools the id comes from, and the permalink form (/e/{id}). It also clarifies that the id namespace includes comparison ids that behave differently, which the schema does not suggest.

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?

Opens with a specific verb and resource ('Explains one finding by its finding id') and immediately enumerates what is explained: claim, evidence strength, verbatim quote, study design, paper, evidence_strength_reasons. It explicitly distinguishes itself from siblings by noting it 'takes no name' and that discovery belongs to find_evidence/get_findings.

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?

States the exact use case ('answer why the evidence behind a finding is as strong as it is, from evidence_strength_reasons and never by guessing') and names the alternatives for the adjacent task ('To find findings, use find_evidence or get_findings'). It also flags a boundary case where a head-to-head comparison id returns a sentence pointing at a comparison page rather than a finding.

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

All Catalyst evidence graph toolsInspect
Try in Browser
One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources