General Decision MCP

jev_verify

Read-only

Verifies each supplied claim and its exact subject against supplied evidence, returning advisory results only and never granting authorization or executing actions.

Instructions

Check each supplied claim and its exact subject independently against supplied evidence. 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": {
      "claims": "<claims>",
      "evidence": "<evidence>"
    },
    "name": "jev_verify"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`scope`	No	Known consequence scope; omitted means unknown and requires human review.
`claims`	Yes
`evidence`	Yes	Supplied text only; no files or URLs are fetched.
`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

A3.6/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is largely covered; the description adds the genuinely useful 'advisory, never authorizes or executes' framing and the per-claim independence trait. It does not explain the non-idempotent hint, nor what an agent should do with unverified or unsupported claims.

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 short sentences with zero filler, front-loading the core action and following with the critical constraint. Nothing is repeated from the schema or title.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the description covers the core action plus the advisory constraint. Minor gap: it omits any mention of the human-review consequence of leaving scope or evidence_complete unset, which the schema handles but the description could have surfaced.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 75%, so most parameters are already documented. The description reinforces that verification is per-claim and per-subject, which adds some interpretive value, but it says nothing about 'scope' or 'evidence_complete', the two parameters whose semantics (omitted = unknown/incomplete, requires human review) most affect correct invocation.

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 and resource: check each supplied claim against supplied evidence, evaluated independently per claim and subject. Clear enough to act on, but the only real differentiation from sibling reviewers (jev_review, jev_gate) is the word 'independently' and the 'advisory only' clause – it never explicitly contrasts itself with those alternatives.

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 phrase 'Advisory only; never grants authorization or executes actions' effectively signals a when-not boundary, steering agents away from treating the result as a gate. However, there is no positive guidance on when to choose this over jev_review or jev_gate, and no stated prerequisites beyond the required claims/evidence inputs.

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

Deploy Server