FlagForge MCP Server

list_evidence

Retrieve all recorded evidence for a challenge to review proof of work and validate progress on CTF tasks.

Instructions

List evidence recorded on a challenge

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": {
      "challenge_id": "<challenge_id>"
    },
    "name": "list_evidence"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`challenge_id`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Sep 5, 2026

TDQS

C2.8/5.0

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 conveys a read-only listing operation scoped to a challenge, but it does not mention pagination, ordering, output shape, or whether full evidence details are returned. This is a minimal behavioral disclosure with significant 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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It conveys the verb, resource, and scope efficiently, earning its place without unnecessary detail.

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 the absence of annotations, output schema, and usage guidance, the description is only minimally adequate for invoking the tool with a challenge_id. It does not explain what the response contains, whether results are paginated, or how this tool relates to the surrounding evidence workflow.

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%, and the description does not explicitly explain the challenge_id parameter. It only hints at the parameter by saying 'on a challenge'. The schema defines the UUID format, but the description adds little semantic meaning beyond that.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('evidence'), and qualifies it with 'recorded on a challenge'. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling list tools like list_events, list_flags, and list_artifacts, though it does not explicitly name an alternative.

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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as save_evidence, get_challenge, or list_flags. There are no conditions, exclusions, or context about the intended workflow, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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