graphrag-ts-pg

integrity_evidence_audit

Audit the evidence behind a paper's retraction picture: every source record with its tier and URI, the dates involved, conflicts between sources (an official registry and an aggregator disagreeing, or a citation acknowledging a retraction the graph does not propagate) and the coverage gaps that bound the conclusion. Use it when you must justify or challenge a verdict; for a one-line status use integrity_paper_status. Returns: evidence records with source tiers and URIs, detected conflict flags with codes and details, and the coverage that limits how strong the conclusion can be. Paid: $0.10 per call (x402 on Base, POST /api/v1/judge); a keyed MCP session also unlocks it.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "integrity_evidence_audit"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`doi`	No	DOI of the paper, e.g. 10.1016/S0140-6736(97)11096-0. Provide exactly one of doi or paper_id.
`paper_id`	No	OpenAlex work id, e.g. W2117847125. Provide exactly one of doi or paper_id.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed4 schema fields changedNov 2, 2026

addedInput schema / $schema

Added value: +"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"

addedInput schema / additionalProperties
```
Added value: +false
```

addedInput schema / properties / doi

Added value: +{
+  "description": "DOI of the paper, e.g. 10.1016/S0140-6736(97)11096-0. Provide exactly one of doi or paper_id.",
+  "minLength": 1,
+  "type": "string"
+}

addedInput schema / properties / paper_id

Added value: +{
+  "description": "OpenAlex work id, e.g. W2117847125. Provide exactly one of doi or paper_id.",
+  "minLength": 1,
+  "type": "string"
+}

First observedNov 1, 2026

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden well: it discloses that the call is paid ($0.10 via x402 on Base), that a keyed MCP session unlocks it, and what kinds of conflicts and coverage limits appear in the result. It does not explicitly state read-only/idempotency semantics, but the audit framing and return description make the operation's nature clear.

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?

The description is front-loaded with the core audit purpose, then alternative routing, then return details, then pricing/auth. Every sentence adds useful decision or invocation context without 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?

There is no output schema, yet the description explains the return structure (evidence records, conflict flags with codes, coverage limits) and the paid/auth model. Given the simple two-parameter input and lack of annotations, this is complete enough for correct selection and invocation.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, and both doi and paper_id are fully documented with examples and an exactly-one-of constraint. The description does not add parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb and resource: auditing the evidence behind a paper's retraction picture. It names the exact artifacts returned (source records, tiers, URIs, dates, conflicts, coverage gaps), making it clearly distinct from integrity_paper_status.

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 explicitly says when to use it—when you must justify or challenge a verdict—and names the alternative integrity_paper_status for a one-line status. That is a direct when-to-use versus alternative routing instruction.

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

All graphrag-ts-pg tools Inspect

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

Need Help?