Skip to main content
Glama

claim_workbench_evidence_ledger

Forensic claim workbench — analyzes a folder of mixed evidence (XER chain + MSG/PDF/DOCX/XLSX correspondence) and produces a unified workbench dashboard.

        Built from the real-world workflow where forensic delay
        analysis starts from a folder containing schedule updates,
        owner correspondence, RFIs, change orders, and meeting
        minutes — all mixed together. The workbench produces:

          - Evidence ledger (chronological): all artifacts dated and
            summarized
          - Schedule chain-diff: 14-category manipulation log
            (TASKPRED add/remove, constraint flips, retroactive
            baseline edits, completion reversals)
          - Rolling baseline: per-activity baseline-at-introduction
            across the entire XER chain
          - Trust score: statistical impossibilities flagged
            (zero-duration-variance schedules, no-new-activities,
            every-activity-hits-baseline, etc.)
          - Slip-to-evidence cross-reference: each forensic slip
            auto-paired with documents in its window mentioning
            affected activity codes
          - Unified HTML dashboard with all of the above

        Use this tool when starting forensic delay analysis from raw
        evidence. For single-XER-pair forensic with hand-prepared
        events, use ``forensic_windows_analysis`` instead.

        Two input modes (supply exactly one):
          * ``folder_path`` — the ``staged_folder_path`` that POST /stage
            returned for YOUR upload, passed back exactly as received.
            No other folder is accepted: not a desktop path, not the
            server temp directory, not another folder inside it.
          * ``evidence_files`` — a CONTENT MANIFEST: a list of
            ``{"name": str, "content_b64": str}`` entries carrying
            base64-encoded file BYTES (handles binary PDF/XLSX/MSG as
            well as text). The tool decodes each blob, sanitizes the
            filename to a bare basename (rejecting path separators,
            ``..``, absolute/drive paths, control chars, dot-only
            traversal), writes it into a FRESH per-call tempdir under
            the allowed server-tempdir root, runs the analysis on that
            staged folder, then cleans the staged dir up. Caps: at most
            500 files and 60 MB total decoded bytes — an over-cap
            manifest returns a clear ``tool_error`` naming the cap and
            the actual size (NEVER silently truncated).

        Args:
            folder_path: the staged_folder_path from POST /stage
                (mode 1; must be that exact folder and must exist).
            evidence_files: content manifest (mode 2); list of
                ``{"name": str, "content_b64": str}``.
            output_dir: optional dir for outputs (tempdir if "").
            company: optional, the firm the dashboard, the trust report and the forensic step carry (title
                block, print cover). Blank unless supplied, and blank
                carries no firm: a hosted run is the caller's document.
            project_name: optional override.
            original_baseline_xer_filename: optional filename in the
                folder identifying the baseline XER.
            contract_form: contract template tag (default 'CCDC2').
            run_forensic: when True (default), also runs
                forensic_windows_analysis on the discovered XER chain.

        Returns:
            {
              "evidence_ledger":     {...},
              "chain_diff":          {...} | None,
              "rolling_baseline":    {...} | None,
              "trust_score":         {...} | None,
              "cross_reference":     {...} | None,
              "forensic_result":     {...} | None,
              "output_files":        {...},
              "errors":              {...} (per-step failure log)
            }
        

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
companyNo
output_dirNo
folder_pathNo
project_nameNo
run_forensicNo
contract_formNoCCDC2
evidence_filesNo
original_baseline_xer_filenameNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / company
      Added value: +{
      +  "default": "",
      +  "title": "Company",
      +  "type": "string"
      +}
  2. First observed

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the full burden and does most of the work: it discloses filename sanitization rules, the per-call tempdir lifecycle (create, run, clean up), hard caps of 500 files / 60 MB with the promise of an explicit tool_error rather than silent truncation, and a per-step errors log. What it does not say is whether the source folder is read-only or mutated, what the runtime/scale looks like on a 500-file run, or any auth requirement, so it stops short of full behavioral disclosure.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

The structure is strong — bolded mode headers, a bulleted output list, and an Args/Returns block that mirrors the schema — and the critical constraints are front-loaded. However, the 'Built from the real-world workflow where forensic delay analysis starts from a folder containing...' paragraph is narrative padding that restates the first sentence, and the company field's three-line parenthetical is written in a style that obscures rather than compresses.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For an 8-parameter, multi-mode orchestration tool with no output schema and no annotations, this is close to complete: it documents both input modes, the caps, the exact return keys (including nullable step results and an errors log), and the delegation to forensic_windows_analysis. The remaining hole is contract_form — an agent cannot tell which template tags are legal, so it must guess or accept the default.

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 description coverage is 0% (bare titles and defaults only), so the Args block is the only parameter documentation and it covers all eight parameters, including the non-obvious run_forensic toggle and the strict semantics of folder_path. Gaps remain: contract_form gives only the default 'CCDC2' with no list of valid contract tags, output_dir's behavior is one parenthetical, and the company field's explanation is wordy without clarifying how a blank differs functionally from a supplied firm in the output.

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?

The description opens with a specific verb and resource ('analyzes a folder of mixed evidence ... produces a unified workbench dashboard') and then enumerates the six concrete outputs, so an agent knows exactly what comes back. It also explicitly names the sibling it is not ('For single-XER-pair forensic with hand-prepared events, use forensic_windows_analysis instead'), which distinguishes it from the other 13 forensic tools.

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?

It states the triggering condition ('Use this tool when starting forensic delay analysis from raw evidence') and the exclusion plus named alternative (forensic_windows_analysis). It also resolves the biggest ambiguity in the schema: the two mutually exclusive input modes, with the instruction 'supply exactly one' and how each mode must be sourced.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.