Skip to main content
Glama

perfect-world

by org.everythingisperfect

evidence_pack_submit

FREE: submit one question to the Evidence Pack desk. Never charges. A person reviews it and answers with an acceptance, a narrower scope, or a quote.

    question: the ONE thing you want established. subject: the project or issue.
    jurisdiction: the city/county/state. reply_to: an email a person can answer.
    sources: optional URLs or citations you already have.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
sourcesNo
subjectYes
questionYes
reply_toYes
jurisdictionYes
source_pagesNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. Added

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does well: it discloses cost (free), human mediation ('A person reviews it'), and possible outcomes (acceptance, narrower scope, quote). It does not mention latency or asynchronous behavior, but core behavioral traits are transparent.

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?

Compact and front-loaded with the most decision-relevant facts (FREE, human review, outcome types). The parameter lines are scannable with no redundant prose.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the workflow, the required fields, and the optional sources field. The only notable omission is source_pages; overall an agent has enough to call the tool correctly.

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 0%, but the description provides meaningful glosses for question, subject, jurisdiction, reply_to, and sources. source_pages is left unexplained, which is a minor gap given it is optional and has a default.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb (submit) and resource (one question to the Evidence Pack desk), and clarifies it is a free, human-reviewed request. It is clearly distinguishable from general-purpose tools, though it does not explicitly contrast with the sibling evidence_pack_offer.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

Implied by 'submit one question to the Evidence Pack desk': this is for requesting a human research/evidence determination. It does not explicitly state when to prefer it over evidence_pack_offer or other siblings, and there are no exclusions or prerequisites. This is adequate but not explicit routing.

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

All perfect-world toolsInspect
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

B3.4/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools target clearly distinct resources or actions: reservoirs vs reservoir, superfund_summary vs superfund_site, and the various search tools are separated by domain. A few pairs could be confused at a glance—officer_lookup vs search_officers and meeting vs search_meetings—but their descriptions remove practical ambiguity.

Naming Consistency3/5

The naming is readable but mixes conventions: some tools use verb_search (search_meetings, search_officers), some use noun_noun (reservoir, superfund_site, trading_post_ledger), and others use a mix like officer_lookup and register_verify. There are consistent subgroups, but no overarching verb_noun pattern.

Tool Count4/5

At 19 tools, the server is on the heavier side, but the breadth of the platform—meetings, reservoirs, superfund sites, officers, legacy conversion, evidence packs, and trading post—justifies most of them. Each tool names a meaningful capability, and none feels redundant enough to cut outright.

Completeness4/5

The set covers the main read/query lifecycle for its data domains: listing, searching, fetching details, and summarizing. The largest gap is that paid conversions and evidence-pack results hand off to external HTTP endpoints or email rather than being fully queryable inside the MCP, but that appears intentional.

Resources