pathpilot-mcp-server

generate_evidence_cards

Creates UI-ready evidence cards with highlights, summaries, sources, and next-step suggestions from analysis results. Accepts a cached analysis ID or an inline analysis object.

Instructions

Return UI-ready evidence cards with highlights, summaries, sources, and next-step suggestions. Accepts an analysisId from a prior run, or an analysis object.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "generate_evidence_cards"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`analysis`	No	Optional inline unified analysis result object.
`analysisId`	No	Cached analysis id returned from analyze_evidence_profile.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Aug 3, 2026

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

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 the output type (UI-ready cards) and its contents, and explains the two accepted input modes (ID or object). It avoids claiming read-only but implies a non-mutating generation. It could mention error handling, but the provided detail is solid.

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?

Two sentences, zero waste. The first sentence states the output, the second states the accepted inputs. Every word earns its place.

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?

For a simple tool with 2 optional parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers the return value and input modes. It lacks details on precedence if both inputs are provided or error handling, but given the low complexity, it is sufficiently complete.

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 both parameters. The description adds value by clarifying that 'analysisId' and 'analysis' are alternative inputs ('or'), which is not explicit in the schema. This helps the agent choose the correct parameter.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: to return UI-ready evidence cards with specific components (highlights, summaries, sources, next-step suggestions). It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on post-analysis card generation rather than analysis or profile fetching.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The sentence 'Accepts an analysisId from a prior run, or an analysis object' gives clear usage context: it should be used after an analysis is available. It implies this is the tool for turning analysis results into presentation-ready cards, though it does not explicitly compare to alternatives.

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

Deploy Server