Mark

Add Source

add_source

Adds a source to the Claims & sources page: pasted text (call notes, an audit, a case study) with an optional link to the original. Claims quote a source's text, so body is required. Returns the source id. Use it as sourceId in save_claim, or as overlay evidence in update_brand_profile. To add a claim and its source in one call, pass source to save_claim instead. Related: save_claim, list_claims, update_brand_profile.

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": {
      "title": "<title>",
      "body": "<body>"
    },
    "name": "add_source"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`url`	No	Link to the original, optional.
`body`	Yes	The pasted text. Claim quotes are checked against it.
`title`	Yes	What the source is, such as 'Q3 audit'.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`appUrl`	Yes
`source`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

AddedOct 8, 2026

TDQS

A4.6/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare write, non-idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior; the description adds the important consequence that body is mandatory because claim quotes are validated against it, and that an id is returned. It does not address what happens on duplicate titles or how body length/content is validated, which matters for a non-idempotent write.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose, then the required-field rationale, then return value, then alternatives and related tools — a clean progression. The trailing "Related: save_claim, list_claims, update_brand_profile" partly repeats tools already named in the body, a small redundancy.

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 an output schema present, the description need not explain return shape, and it still notes the source id. All three parameters are covered, the alternative path is given, and the downstream id usage is spelled out — nothing an agent needs to call this correctly is missing.

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: it explains why body is required (claim quotes are checked against it, so it must be verbatim text) and frames url as an optional pointer to the original. That rationale shapes how an agent fills the fields rather than restating them.

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 ("Adds a source to the Claims & sources page") and immediately qualifies what a source is (pasted text such as call notes, an audit, a case study, plus an optional link). It is clearly distinguishable from save_claim, which is called out as the tool that also creates a claim.

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?

Gives explicit when-to-use (standalone source creation) and an explicit alternative: "To add a claim and its source in one call, pass source to save_claim instead." It also names the downstream consumers of the returned id (save_claim, update_brand_profile), so the agent knows the follow-on path.

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

All Mark 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?