AI Design Blueprint

Add Evidence Note

me.add_evidence

Authenticated — append a free-text evidence note to a specific stage in the caller's active course. Notes record concrete implementation observations, decisions, or artefacts that demonstrate progress through a Blueprint principle (e.g. how a delegation boundary was implemented, what approval flow was chosen and why). Persisted as UserStageEvidence rows scoped to (user_id, course_slug, stage_slug). WHEN TO CALL: AFTER the user has articulated something concrete they have built, observed, or decided — not to capture intent or speculation. Pair with me.coaching_context to close evidence gaps. WHEN NOT TO CALL: to log every conversation turn; to record planning, ideas, or todos; on behalf of another user; without the user's awareness (they should know their progress is being recorded). BEHAVIOR: write-only, single insert. Auth: Bearer (Firebase ID token, any plan). UK/EU residency. Notes are visible only to the owning user and are surfaced on me.learning_path / me.coaching_context. Confirms the stage_slug + course_slug pair in the response so the user can see which stage was credited.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`note`	Yes	Evidence note to append to the delegation boundary notes for this stage.
`stage_id`	Yes	ID of the stage to append the evidence note to.
`course_slug`	Yes	Slug of the course the stage belongs to (e.g. 'agentic-fundamentals').

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

TDQS

A4.8/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

The description discloses key behavioral traits beyond annotations: write-only single insert, authentication method, UK/EU residency, visibility rules, and response behavior. This goes well beyond the generic readOnlyHint=false annotation and provides critical operational context.

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 description is long but well-structured with labeled sections (behavior, when to call, when not, auth, visibility). It earns its length given the tool's complexity, though there is slight redundancy (e.g., 'Authenticated' at the start and 'Auth: Bearer' in behavior).

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity and existing output schema, the description covers all necessary context: purpose, usage, behavior, auth, residency, visibility, and response. An agent can correctly select and invoke this tool without additional information.

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 parameters already have descriptions. The tool description adds semantic depth by explaining what constitutes a good note (concrete evidence vs. speculation), how course_slug and stage_id relate to persistence scoping, and that the response confirms the stage/credit pair. Minor inconsistency (stage_slug vs stage_id) does not undermine clarity.

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 clearly specifies the action ('append a free-text evidence note'), the target ('a specific stage in the caller's active course'), and the purpose (recording concrete observations, decisions, or artefacts). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like me.coaching_context and me.learning_path, which are read-oriented.

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?

Explicit WHEN TO CALL and WHEN NOT TO CALL sections are provided, including concrete positive and negative examples. It also recommends pairing with me.coaching_context, making the usage context unambiguous and actionable.

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

All AI Design Blueprint tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Disambiguation5/5

Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose within its domain: the validators are differentiated by lens (architect/design/spec), content tools are split by entity (principles/clusters/guides/examples/assets) with list/get/search variants, and even the me.* and handoffs.* tools have non-overlapping functions. The only near-overlap (architect.validate vs architect.validate_consensus) is explicitly disambiguated by the consensus variant's description.

Naming Consistency4/5

Tool names consistently use a domain prefix (architect., principles., me., etc.) and snake_case throughout. While most are action-oriented (validate, list, get, search, add, await, report, summarize), some me.* and handoffs.* names are noun phrases (me.learning_path, handoffs.agency) that don't signal the action as clearly, creating minor deviation from a pure verb_noun or action pattern.

Tool Count3/5

At 29 tools, the set is heavy but justified by the server's broad multi-domain scope (doctrine, validation, learning, support, and team analytics). Each tool has a distinct role, but the number exceeds the typical well-scoped range, and some content types (e.g., examples) could have been consolidated without losing function.

Completeness4/5

The server covers its apparent domains thoroughly: doctrine content has list/get/search for most entity types, validation covers architecture/design/spec with consensus and certification, and user learning/support have appropriate tools. Minor gaps exist—e.g., examples have no list-all endpoint, and session management is web-only—but none are blocking for core workflows.

Resources

Need Help?