submit_evidenceSubmit research evidence as a signed packet with citations. Provide task ID, claims, source quotes, URLs, confidence levels, and methodology for verification.
[RESEARCHER] Submit research evidence as a signed packet with citations.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| claims | Yes | Evidence claims with citations | |
| task_id | Yes | Task ID | |
| methodology | Yes | How you gathered this evidence |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v4.0.0Input schema / $schemaPrevious value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"Input schema / additionalPropertiesRemoved value: -falseInput schema / properties / claims / items / additionalPropertiesRemoved value: -falsev2.8.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, so the mutation profile is partly covered. The description adds one useful trait not in the annotations — that the packet must be 'signed' — but omits behavioral consequences an agent needs, notably that non-idempotency means resubmission may duplicate a packet rather than update it.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with the role tag, verb, and object in sequence; no filler. It is perhaps too terse given the structured payload it expects, but nothing is wasted.
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?
No output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and annotations carry the safety profile. However, the input requires a nested claims array with six required sub-fields per claim, and the description never hints at that structure or at the 10+ word quote constraint, leaving the agent underprepared for a non-trivial payload.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100% and all three required parameters (task_id, claims, methodology) are documented in-schema, including the nested claim fields and the enum for confidence. The description adds nothing beyond repeating 'citations', so baseline 3 is correct.
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 ('Submit') and resource ('research evidence as a signed packet with citations'), plus the [RESEARCHER] role tag that scopes who calls it. It does not, however, distinguish itself from near-siblings like review_evidence, handoff_evidence, or submit_deliverable, so an agent must infer the boundary from names alone.
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, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as handoff_evidence for passing packets onward. The role tag is the only routing signal.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.