Skip to main content
Glama

claim_workbench_evidence_ledger

Forensic claim workbench — analyzes a folder of mixed evidence (XER chain + MSG/PDF/DOCX/XLSX correspondence) and produces a unified workbench dashboard.

        Built from the real-world workflow where forensic delay
        analysis starts from a folder containing schedule updates,
        owner correspondence, RFIs, change orders, and meeting
        minutes — all mixed together. The workbench produces:

          - Evidence ledger (chronological): all artifacts dated and
            summarized
          - Schedule chain-diff: 14-category manipulation log
            (TASKPRED add/remove, constraint flips, retroactive
            baseline edits, completion reversals)
          - Rolling baseline: per-activity baseline-at-introduction
            across the entire XER chain
          - Trust score: statistical impossibilities flagged
            (zero-duration-variance schedules, no-new-activities,
            every-activity-hits-baseline, etc.)
          - Slip-to-evidence cross-reference: each forensic slip
            auto-paired with documents in its window mentioning
            affected activity codes
          - Unified HTML dashboard with all of the above

        Use this tool when starting forensic delay analysis from raw
        evidence. For single-XER-pair forensic with hand-prepared
        events, use ``forensic_windows_analysis`` instead.

        Two input modes (supply exactly one):
          * ``folder_path`` — the ``staged_folder_path`` that POST /stage
            returned for YOUR upload, passed back exactly as received.
            No other folder is accepted: not a desktop path, not the
            server temp directory, not another folder inside it.
          * ``evidence_files`` — a CONTENT MANIFEST: a list of
            ``{"name": str, "content_b64": str}`` entries carrying
            base64-encoded file BYTES (handles binary PDF/XLSX/MSG as
            well as text). The tool decodes each blob, sanitizes the
            filename to a bare basename (rejecting path separators,
            ``..``, absolute/drive paths, control chars, dot-only
            traversal), writes it into a FRESH per-call tempdir under
            the allowed server-tempdir root, runs the analysis on that
            staged folder, then cleans the staged dir up. Caps: at most
            500 files and 60 MB total decoded bytes — an over-cap
            manifest returns a clear ``tool_error`` naming the cap and
            the actual size (NEVER silently truncated).

        Args:
            folder_path: the staged_folder_path from POST /stage
                (mode 1; must be that exact folder and must exist).
            evidence_files: content manifest (mode 2); list of
                ``{"name": str, "content_b64": str}``.
            output_dir: optional dir for outputs (tempdir if "").
            project_name: optional override.
            original_baseline_xer_filename: optional filename in the
                folder identifying the baseline XER.
            contract_form: contract template tag (default 'CCDC2').
            run_forensic: when True (default), also runs
                forensic_windows_analysis on the discovered XER chain.

        Returns:
            {
              "evidence_ledger":     {...},
              "chain_diff":          {...} | None,
              "rolling_baseline":    {...} | None,
              "trust_score":         {...} | None,
              "cross_reference":     {...} | None,
              "forensic_result":     {...} | None,
              "output_files":        {...},
              "errors":              {...} (per-step failure log)
            }
        

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
output_dirNo
folder_pathNo
project_nameNo
run_forensicNo
contract_formNoCCDC2
evidence_filesNo
original_baseline_xer_filenameNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed3 schema fields changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / evidence_files
      Added value: +{
      +  "anyOf": [
      +    {
      +      "items": {},
      +      "type": "array"
      +    },
      +    {
      +      "type": "null"
      +    }
      +  ],
      +  "default": null,
      +  "title": "Evidence Files"
      +}
    • addedInput schema / properties / folder_path / default
      Added value: +""
    • removedInput schema / required
      Removed value: -[
      -  "folder_path"
      -]
  2. First observed

TDQS

A5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral burden and meets it: it discloses fresh tempdir creation, filename sanitization, cleanup, 500-file/60 MB caps, non-silent tool_error on over-cap, and that run_forensic defaults to running another analyzer. It also documents per-step error logging in the return payload.

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 long but well-structured: purpose, output bullets, usage guidance, input modes, Args, and Returns. Every block adds operational detail required for a complex 7-parameter tool with no schema descriptions or annotations; the structure makes the length navigable rather than bloated.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is exceptionally complete. It covers return fields, input mode constraints, file handling behavior, defaults, cleanup, and error behavior, leaving no critical call-time gap.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters5/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does comprehensively. The Args section explains all seven parameters, including folder_path being exactly the staged_folder_path, evidence_files being a base64 content manifest, output_dir defaulting to tempdir, and run_forensic/contract_form defaults.

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 (analyzes) and resource (a folder of mixed evidence) and enumerates concrete outputs: evidence ledger, chain-diff, rolling baseline, trust score, cross-reference, and unified HTML dashboard. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools by naming forensic_windows_analysis and explaining the different input/scope.

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 gives explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Use this tool when starting forensic delay analysis from raw evidence.' It also gives an exclusion and alternative: 'For single-XER-pair forensic with hand-prepared events, use forensic_windows_analysis instead.' It further specifies input-mode selection rules and capacity caps.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.