General Decision MCP

jev_screen

Read-only

Estimate injection, relevance, and substance signals in supplied text to guide advisory screening decisions; results do not sanitize content or grant authorization.

Instructions

Estimate injection, relevance and substance signals in supplied text. Screening does not sanitize content or make it trusted. Advisory only; never grants authorization or executes actions.

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": {
      "purpose": "<purpose>",
      "items": "<items>"
    },
    "name": "jev_screen"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`items`	Yes
`scope`	No	Known consequence scope; omitted means unknown and requires human review.
`purpose`	Yes
`evidence_complete`	No	Caller attests supplied evidence is complete; omitted means incomplete. Not independent verification.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`tool`	Yes
`error`	No
`model`	Yes
`usage`	Yes
`policy`	Yes
`status`	Yes
`answers`	Yes
`summary`	Yes
`evidence`	Yes
`provider`	Yes
`schema_version`	Yes
`requested_model`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Nov 11, 2026

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new context beyond that: screening output is advisory, does not sanitize, does not confer trust, and never grants authorization or executes actions. It omits cost/latency and how the 'unknown scope' review path is surfaced, keeping it from a 5.

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, zero filler, with the core function stated first and the safety caveats following. Every sentence carries distinct information (what it does, what it does not do, what it never authorizes).

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and annotations cover the read-only profile. Still, for a tool with 4 parameters and only half documented, the description leaves the meaning of 'purpose' and the significance of the evidence/scope attestations unexplained, which is a real gap for correct invocation.

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?

With only 50% schema description coverage, the description is expected to compensate, and it says nothing about any parameter. It never explains the role of the required 'purpose' field, the item id/text structure, or the 20-item cap — an agent must read the schema alone to learn these.

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 verb ('Estimate') and specific resources ('injection, relevance and substance signals in supplied text'), which is far more informative than the opaque name jev_screen. It does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings like jev_classify or jev_risk, so it stops 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 Guidelines3/5

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

It gives exclusionary guidance ('does not sanitize content or make it trusted', 'Advisory only'), which tells the agent what this tool is not for. However, there is no positive when-to-use trigger and no named alternative for the cases this tool declines to handle, so usage selection is only implied.

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

Deploy Server