oddsky

add_claim

Record a checkable claim with a tag (observed, computed, inferred, or speculated) and cite the tool call IDs it relies on to preserve provenance.

Instructions

Record a claim. tag must be observed | computed | inferred | speculated. Cite the call_id(s) of the tool results it rests on (computed and observed claims without calls are weak).

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": {
      "case": "<case>",
      "text": "<text>",
      "tag": "<tag>"
    },
    "name": "add_claim"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`tag`	Yes
`case`	Yes
`text`	Yes
`calls`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.3.1Nov 12, 2026

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden; it does disclose the validation constraint (tag enumeration) and the epistemic-strength consequence of omitting calls, which is useful non-schema context. It says nothing about what a write does on success, whether duplicate claims are merged, what permissions are needed, or what is returned.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then constraints in order of importance. No filler or restatement of the tool name.

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

Completeness3/5

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

For a four-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the constraint and citation semantics go a long way. The unresolved case parameter and the absence of any note on return/error behavior leave a real gap for an agent assembling a call.

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%, so the description must compensate, and it does cover the two non-obvious parameters well: it effectively supplies the enum for tag (absent from the schema) and explains that calls holds call_id references to supporting tool results. It says nothing about case, whose identifier source (e.g. open_case/list_cases) the agent must guess.

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?

"Record a claim" gives a specific verb plus resource, and the tag/citation rules make the nature of the object concrete. It never names add_hypothesis or retract_claim as the contrasting sibling, so differentiation is left partly implicit.

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?

It does give real usage rules — tag must be one of four values, and computed/observed claims without call_ids are weak — which is genuine conditional guidance. It does not say when to file a claim versus a hypothesis or when to retract instead, so alternatives remain unaddressed.

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