Returns every evidence item owned by the calling account, newest first, as a summary (no full receipt data, call get_evidence for the complete receipt kit on a specific item). Use this to find an evidence_id when the caller only knows a file name, or to check on recent timestamping activity.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| data | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "properties": {
+ "data": {
+ "items": {
+ "properties": {
+ "blockchain_tx_hash": {
+ "type": [
+ "string",
+ "null"
+ ]
+ },
+ "created_at": {
+ "format": "date-time",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "explorer_url": {
+ "description": "Public block-explorer link for blockchain_tx_hash. Null until the timestamp job has settled on-chain.",
+ "format": "uri",
+ "type": [
+ "string",
+ "null"
+ ]
+ },
+ "file_hash": {
+ "description": "SHA-256 hex digest, 64 characters.",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "file_name": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "file_size": {
+ "type": [
+ "integer",
+ "null"
+ ]
+ },
+ "id": {
+ "format": "uuid",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "mime_type": {
+ "type": [
+ "string",
+ "null"
+ ]
+ },
+ "origin_channel": {
+ "description": "Set to 'mcp_agent' when this item was created via an MCP agent key; null otherwise (web/mobile channel tracking is not yet implemented. See EVIDENCE_CUSTODY_TRACKING_BLUEPRINT.md).",
+ "enum": [
+ "mcp_agent",
+ null
+ ],
+ "type": [
+ "string",
+ "null"
+ ]
+ },
+ "original_file_name": {
+ "type": [
+ "string",
+ "null"
+ ]
+ },
+ "status": {
+ "enum": [
+ "pending",
+ "submitted",
+ "failed"
+ ],
+ "type": "string"
+ }
+ },
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "type": "array"
+ }
+ },
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses ownership scoping, sort order, and the deliberate truncation of payload (summary only, no full receipt data). It omits auth requirements or pagination/limit behavior, which is a minor gap for a list endpoint.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single front-loaded sentence delivers the return contract, ordering, and the sibling routing without waste; the parenthetical earns its place by preventing misuse for full receipt retrieval.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be enumerated, and the description still explains the summary-vs-full distinction. For a no-parameter list tool, nothing needed for correct invocation is missing.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description implicitly confirms there is no filtering input, and there is no parameter syntax that needs explaining.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific verb and resource ('Returns every evidence item owned by the calling account') plus scope and ordering ('newest first'). It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling get_evidence by characterizing its own output as a summary rather than the complete receipt kit.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Gives two concrete when-to-use conditions ('find an evidence_id when the caller only knows a file name', 'check on recent timestamping activity') and names the alternative tool to use for full receipt data. Nothing is left to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.