phasefolio

get_dossier

Read-onlyIdempotent

Fetch the structured asset snapshot JSON for a scenario — the same content rendered in the PDF/Excel exports, in machine-readable form. Includes verdict, drivers, assumptions, evidence summary, and (if available) signed-export hashes pointing to the latest signed artifacts.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`scenario_id`	Yes	UUID of the scenario to fetch the asset snapshot payload for.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`data`	Yes	Structured asset snapshot payload mirroring the PDF/Excel exports. Top-level keys include verdict, drivers, assumptions, evidence, and (when available) signed_export hashes. See get_methodology('evidence-standards') for the full structure.

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already establish safety (read-only, idempotent, non-destructive). The description adds behavioral detail beyond annotations by specifying inclusion of signed-export hashes (if available) and the exact components (verdict, drivers, assumptions, evidence summary), which helps agents understand what the response will contain and its relationship to export artifacts.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core action and immediately clarifying the export equivalence. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy or unnecessary 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?

With a single well-documented parameter, rich annotations, and an output schema, the description sufficiently covers what the tool does and returns. The mention of signed-export hashes and content composition provides complete context for an agent's decision-making, without needing to explain return values (output schema exists).

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 coverage is 100% and the parameter description already fully explains scenario_id. The tool description reinforces it but adds no new format, constraints, or behavioral meaning beyond the schema; hence baseline 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 clearly states the tool fetches structured asset snapshot JSON for a scenario, distinguishing it from siblings like get_scenario (likely scenario metadata) and get_evidence (evidence-specific) by specifying it returns the same content as PDF/Excel exports in machine-readable form, including verdicts, drivers, assumptions, and evidence summary.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides clear context: use this when you need the machine-readable snapshot of a scenario, equivalent to the exports. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the referenced export relationship and content list give enough guidance for appropriate selection.

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

All phasefolio 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 targets a distinct entity or operation: get_* fetches specific objects, query_* searches datasets, list_scenarios enumerates, while triage_asset and verify_export are standalone actions. There is no functional overlap or ambiguity among the 13 tools.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in lowercase with underscores. The verbs (get, list, query, triage, verify) clearly indicate the action, and nouns identify the target. This uniform scheme makes the tool purpose predictable.

Tool Count5/5

With 13 tools, the server is well-scoped within the ideal 3–15 range. Each tool addresses a specific aspect of the drug-development analysis domain (project/scenario context, evidence, methodology, benchmarks, risk, landscape, SEC deals, dossier, verification, triage) without redundancy.

Completeness4/5

The read-side surface is thorough for the domain: projects, scenarios, evidence, methodology, benchmarks, drug risk, landscape, SEC deals, dossier, export verification, and triage are all covered. The only minor gap is the lack of a list_projects tool, but get_project can fetch a known project, providing a workaround.

Resources

Need Help?