MVR API - Minimum Viable Relationships

Compile evidence context

mvr_context_compile

Read-only

Use after evidence capture to separate safe from unsafe inferences across formal, field, market, trust, and stakeholder context. It compiles context; it does not authorize action. Use when: Use when evidence is mixed and the agent needs safe claims versus unsafe claims before a verdict. Do not use when: Do not use as a go/no-go decision. Submit only consented, data-minimized, redacted or aggregated evidence; never raw confidential datasets, secrets, credentials, or personal identifiers.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`payload`	Yes	Resolved subject, market scope, and mixed evidence to compile into safe and unsafe inferences.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`status`	No
`workflow_id`	No
`formal_proof`	No
`mcp_next_call`	No
`mcp_next_tool`	No
`response_meta`	No
`safe_inferences`	No
`workflow_status`	No
`unsafe_inferences`	No
`workflow_expires_at`	No
`mvr_response_receipt`	No
`required_user_inputs`	No
`verification_required`	No
`sentiment_trust_signal`	No
`continuation_disposition`	No
`informal_operating_signal`	No

TDQS

A4.9/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Beyond annotations (readOnlyHint=true), the description clarifies that the tool 'does not authorize action' and imposes privacy constraints on submitted evidence, adding valuable behavioral context.

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 compact, front-loaded with purpose, and uses a clear 'Use when/Do not use when' structure. Every sentence adds value without 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 a complex nested payload and output schema present, the description sufficiently covers the tool's role in the workflow, input restrictions, and non-authorization behavior, making it complete for an agent.

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% for the payload, but the description enriches semantics by indicating the types of context (formal, field, market, trust, stakeholder) and the requirement for redacted/aggregated evidence, which maps to the payload structure.

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 uses a specific verb ('separate') and resource ('safe from unsafe inferences across formal, field, market, trust, and stakeholder context'), clearly distinguishing it from siblings like mvr_decision_check or mvr_evidence_completeness.

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?

Explicitly provides 'Use when' (evidence is mixed, before a verdict) and 'Do not use when' (as a go/no-go decision), plus input constraints about consented, data-minimized evidence.

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

All MVR API - Minimum Viable Relationships 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 distinct role in the MVR workflow: preflight, entity resolution, evidence completeness check, context compilation, and decision routing. No two tools overlap in purpose, and the descriptions clearly specify when each should be used.

Naming Consistency3/5

All tools share the 'mvr_' prefix, but the suffix pattern is inconsistent: context_compile, decision_check, and entity_resolve follow a noun_verb structure, while evidence_completeness and first_call are noun phrases. This mixed convention reduces predictability, though the prefix provides some coherence.

Tool Count5/5

Five tools is appropriate for the decision-governance pipeline they represent—each step from initial preflight to final routing has a dedicated tool. The scope is neither bloated nor thin.

Completeness4/5

The toolset covers the full decision pipeline: first_call preflight, entity resolution, evidence completeness, context compilation, and final decision routing. Minor gaps include a lack of explicit evidence-capture tooling, but that appears to be external to the server's design, so the surface is reasonably complete for its purpose.

Compile evidence context

Input Schema

Output Schema

TDQS

Glama MCP Gateway

TDQS

Resources