Verify evidence chain integrity for OSINT cases by checking a specified evidence directory against a case ID, helping detect tampering or gaps in collected artifacts.
Verify evidence chain integrity
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| case_id | Yes | ||
| evidence_dir | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and discloses nothing about side effects, permissions, read-only vs. mutating nature, or what integrity checking returns. It is a bare phrase that gives an agent no behavioral confidence.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The single sentence is front-loaded but radically under-sized for a tool with two required inputs and no supporting metadata. It is terse to the point of under-specification, not efficiently concise.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the absence of annotations, output schema, and parameter descriptions, the description should explain behavior and parameter meaning but does neither. It is not complete enough for an agent to call the tool with confidence.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 0% description coverage for two required parameters, and the description does not mention case_id or evidence_dir at all. An agent receives no format, source, or semantic guidance for either parameter.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific verb ('Verify') and resource ('evidence chain integrity'), and is distinguishable from the unrelated siblings. However, it does not clarify what the evidence chain is or what the verification entails, leaving the purpose somewhat opaque.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or alternatives are provided. An agent must infer usage entirely from the tool name and required parameters.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.