EvidenceGene Court

Server Quality Checklist

Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

Latest release: v0.1.0
Disambiguation4/5
Each tool targets a distinct forensic operation, though vol_pslist and vol_psscan both enumerate processes, differing only in technique. The descriptions clarify this, but the overlap is still a minor source of potential confusion.
Naming Consistency4/5
The tool names mostly follow a predictable convention with domain prefixes like verify_, vol_, and disk_, but cross_validate_processes and artifact_query break the pattern, making the set slightly inconsistent.
Tool Count5/5
With 11 tools, the server is well-scoped for a forensics toolkit. Each tool earns its place, covering integrity checks, memory analysis, disk analysis, and result browsing without unnecessary bloat.
Completeness4/5
The set covers the core forensic workflow: evidence integrity, audit verification, memory artifact extraction, disk timelines, and cross-validation. However, it lacks common operations like file extraction or advanced memory analysis, leaving minor gaps.
Average 3.1/5 across 11 of 11 tools scored. Lowest: 2.4/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 19 commits in the last 12 weeks
- Last stable release on June 13, 2026
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI is passing
This repository is licensed under MIT License.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description alone must disclose behavior. It only states that the tool reads command lines from memory, offering no detail about side effects, required permissions, or output characteristics beyond the tool name.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is exceptionally brief with no filler words. However, it is under-specified for the tool's complexity, providing little more than the plugin name and a noun-phrase description.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given that there is an output schema and only two simple string parameters, the tool itself is not complex, but the description is too sparse to be complete. It lacks any workflow context, parameter explanation, or usage conditions, making it hard for an agent to select correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has two required parameters (image_path, source) with 0% schema description coverage, and the description adds no information about them. The agent must infer their meaning from the parameter names alone, which is insufficient for 'source'.
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?
The description clearly identifies the tool as the Volatility3 windows.cmdline plugin and states its function: obtaining process command lines from memory. This is specific enough to distinguish it from sibling process-listing tools like vol_pslist and vol_psscan, though it uses the noun 'process' rather than an explicit verb like 'extract'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No usage guidance is provided. The description does not mention when to use this tool versus vol_pslist, vol_psscan, or other alternatives, nor does it state any prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only mentions the underlying tool (Sleuth Kit mmls) and the action, but does not state whether it is read-only, what output format to expect, or any side effects. This is a significant gap for a forensic tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, tightly worded sentence with no fluff or redundant content. However, its extreme brevity comes at the cost of essential details, making it concise but not optimally structured for clarity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
While an output schema exists (so return values need no explanation), the description omits critical context such as parameter meanings, usage scenarios, and any behavioral caveats. For a tool with two required parameters and no annotations, this description is materially incomplete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has zero description coverage for both 'source' and 'image_path'. The description mentions the image format (E01/raw) but does not explicitly map it to image_path, and 'source' is completely unexplained. Since the description must compensate for schema gaps, this is clearly insufficient.
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?
The description clearly identifies the tool as listing the partition table of a disk image (E01/raw), which is a specific resource and distinguishes it from siblings like vol_pslist or disk_file_timeline. However, it lacks an explicit verb like 'list' or 'display', so it falls short of a 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives among the siblings. It does not mention any prerequisites, exclusions, or comparison with other disk or process analysis tools, leaving usage entirely implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not state whether the tool is read-only, whether it requires a memory image, what side effects it might have, or how results are returned. The lack of any behavioral detail beyond the plugin name and target leaves significant ambiguity.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence with no filler or repetition. It is front-loaded with the plugin name and immediately conveys the core concept. However, it is so terse that important details from other dimensions are omitted, making it efficient but not optimally structured for completeness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite having an output schema, the description is extremely sparse. For a Volatility memory analysis plugin, it does not explain required inputs (e.g., a memory image path), output structure, or how it differs from related plugins like vol_psscan. The tool is complex enough that this one-line description is insufficient for an agent to use it safely and effectively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has two required parameters (source, image_path) with no descriptions, and the description provides zero information about either parameter. With schema description coverage at 0%, the description fails to compensate by explaining what these parameters represent or how they should be formatted. The agent receives no help beyond parameter names.
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?
The description identifies the tool as 'Volatility3 windows.malfind' and states it relates to 'injected/suspicious executable memory regions,' which clearly indicates it finds memory regions containing injected code. While it lacks an explicit verb like 'find' or 'scan,' the plugin name 'malfind' inherently conveys the action, and the distinction from sibling plugins (e.g., vol_pslist, vol_netscan) is clear.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention scenarios, prerequisites, or why one might choose malfind over other Volatility plugins such as vol_pslist or vol_cmdline. The usage context is entirely implied by the tool's name and purpose, but no explicit comparisons or exclusions are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not mention that this is a read-only memory scan, any permissions required, or potential performance implications. It only states the tool's general function, leaving the agent without safety or side-effect information.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence, front-loaded with the tool name and core function. However, it is so brief that it omits useful context, though it does not waste words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite having an output schema, the description lacks essential context for a memory-forensics tool. It does not mention the memory image, analysis environment, or any relationship to other Volatility plugins, leaving the agent underinformed about the tool's role and requirements.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema includes two required parameters (source, image_path) with zero schema description coverage. The description does not explain the purpose or format of either parameter, failing to compensate for the missing schema documentation.
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?
The description names a specific resource (network connections and listeners) and the Volatility3 module, which distinguishes it from sibling process-listing tools. However, it lacks an explicit action verb like 'lists' or 'scans', relying on the module name to imply the operation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The statement simply describes what it does, without any context on prerequisites, ideal scenarios, or exclusions relative to sibling tools like vol_pslist or vol_malfind.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It mentions it reads the active process list but omits any details about prerequisites, limitations, or the fact that it is a read-only operation. The return format is left to the output schema.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely short and free of fluff, but it is under-specified to the point of being unhelpful. It front-loads the plugin name but saves no room for essential details.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Although an output schema exists, the description fails to contextualize the tool's inputs, relationship to siblings, or operational expectations. For a tool with two required parameters and no annotations, this level of completeness is insufficient.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0% and the description provides no explanation of the 'source' and 'image_path' parameters. Users must infer their meaning from context, which is inadequate for a tool with two required parameters.
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 identifies the tool as Volatility3's windows.pslist plugin and specifies its function: listing processes from the active process list. This distinguishes it from sibling vol_psscan, which uses a different scanning technique.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like vol_psscan or vol_cmdline. The description only states what it does, not the appropriate context or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Since no annotations are provided, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It mentions recursive traversal and MACB timestamps but omits whether the operation is read-only, potential performance implications, or prerequisites like filesystem type. The description is not misleading but is incomplete for a forensic tool where safety and system impact are key.
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 two sentences with no filler. The first sentence packs the tool's identity and function, the second provides a focused usage tip. It is front-loaded and every clause adds value, exemplifying concise structure.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With four parameters, zero annotation coverage, and only an output schema to rely on, the description is too sparse. It explains only one parameter and gives no operational context for the required parameters or the tool's behavior in practice. The presence of an output schema covers return shape but not the input semantics, which remains a significant gap.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
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. Only path_filter gets semantic explanation via the substring example and intended use. The required parameters image_path, source, and sector_offset remain completely opaque; the description adds no meaning to them, leaving the agent to guess their purpose.
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?
The description clearly states it generates a 'recursive file timeline from a partition (MACB timestamps)' via 'Sleuth Kit fls', which is specific and distinct from sibling tools like disk_partitions or memory-based volatility tools. However, it does not explicitly name any alternative or contrast it with siblings, so it misses the highest bar of sibling differentiation.
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?
Usage is implied: when you need a MACB file timeline from a disk partition, use this tool. It provides a concrete hint on using path_filter with examples ('Windows/Prefetch', 'Users'), but offers no explicit 'when not to use' or references to alternative tools, leaving selection reasoning to the agent.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It implies read-only operation through 'page through' and 'previously recorded,' but does not explicitly state safety, error behavior, or side effects. The description is minimal.
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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no redundancy. Every word contributes to the core function.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no annotations and sparse parameter documentation, the description is insufficient for an agent to fully understand query behavior, required parameters, or search scope. The output schema exists but does not compensate for missing behavioral and usage context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must clarify parameters. It hints at pagination and search behaviors but does not map them to specific parameter names, nor explain the required artifact_id or search semantics. The description adds only limited semantic value.
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 specific verbs 'page through' and 'search' with a clear resource ('full rows of a previously recorded artifact'). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools, which focus on integrity verification, memory analysis, or disk operations.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no information about when to use this tool over alternatives or any exclusions. It simply states the tool's function without situational guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does reveal the scanning technique (pool scan) and its special capability to find hidden/terminated processes, which is useful. Yet it does not address potential side effects, permissions, or limitations, leaving notable transparency gaps.
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 a single sentence that leads with the plugin name and immediately states the tool's purpose. Every word earns its place, making it highly concise and well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Even though an output schema exists, the description is insufficient for a complex Volatility operation. It lacks parameter explanations, prerequisites, usage alternatives, and any annotation support, making it inadequate for safe and correct invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has zero description coverage for 'source' and 'image_path', and the description does not mention either parameter. Neither the schema nor the description clarifies what 'source' means or how the two parameters relate, leaving the agent without needed guidance.
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 identifies the tool as running the Volatility 3 windows.psscan plugin and states its specific function: 'pool-scanned processes (finds hidden/terminated).' This distinguishes it from siblings like vol_pslist, which lists standard processes, by emphasizing its unique ability to discover hidden or terminated processes.
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 description provides a clear context for when to use this tool: when seeking hidden or terminated processes. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or define when not to use it, so it lacks the explicit exclusions that would earn a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the output behavior ('returns ghost processes') and implies a non-mutating comparison, but does not mention prerequisites (e.g., prior output from vol_pslist/vol_psscan), error conditions, or side effects.
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?
One concise sentence front-loads the core action and result. Every word is purposeful with no redundant content, making it highly efficient.
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 tool with two string parameters and an output schema, the description provides the essential purpose but lacks usage guidance and prerequisite context. It is minimally sufficient but leaves gaps around when to invoke and how inputs should be prepared.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, yet the description only rephrases the parameter names ('pslist vs psscan artifacts') without adding format, source, or usage details. The agent gains little beyond what the parameter names already convey.
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 a specific action: 'Compare pslist vs psscan artifacts' with a distinct outcome ('returns ghost processes'). It differentiates from siblings like vol_pslist and vol_psscan by focusing on cross-validation rather than standalone listing.
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?
Usage is implied through the comparison of two artifacts, suggesting it is used when investigating hidden processes. However, it does not explicitly state when to choose this over alternatives or when not to use it, lacking clear exclusions or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'hash' implies a read-only operation, the description does not explicitly state that the tool does not modify the image or that it only reads the file. It adds the purpose (chain-of-custody) but stops short of detailing the output or side effects.
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 a single sentence that front-loads the primary action and purpose. Every word serves a function, and there is no redundant information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has two required parameters with no schema descriptions, and the description fails to clarify the 'source' parameter. While an output schema exists, the lack of parameter semantics leaves a significant gap in understanding the tool's full usage.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must explain the parameters. The description indirectly references the image path via 'evidence image' but does not mention 'source' at all. The meaning of 'source' remains unclear—whether it refers to the hash algorithm source, the image origin, or something else is unspecified.
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 function: 'Hash an evidence image (sha256/md5) for chain-of-custody.' This uses a specific verb (hash), targets a specific resource (evidence image), and even includes the purpose (chain-of-custody). It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on image integrity verification.
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 description provides explicit workflow guidance with 'Run this first,' indicating this should be executed before other forensic tools. However, it does not name alternatives or explicitly state when not to use this tool, though the instruction to run first implies a specific position in the process.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It says the tool 'replays' and 'proves' but does not disclose whether it is a read-only operation, what happens if the chain is tampered, or any side effects.
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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the action and the purpose. No words are wasted.
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 tool with no parameters, the description provides clear purpose and outcome. However, since there is no output schema, the description could more explicitly state the return format or result type, though 'proves' implies a boolean/verification result.
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?
The tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline of 4 applies. There is no parameter information missing; the description is not required to elaborate on parameters.
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 ('Replay') and a clear resource ('SHA-256 audit chain'), and states the outcome ('proves the investigation log is untampered'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like verify_image_integrity.
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?
The description implies the use case (verifying the integrity of the investigation log) but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![evidencegene-court MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/FUYOH666/evidencegene-court/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/FUYOH666/evidencegene-court)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![evidencegene-court MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/FUYOH666/evidencegene-court/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/FUYOH666/evidencegene-court)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/FUYOH666/evidencegene-court'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server