EAD Factory MCP Server

Official

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

evidence_group_evidence_register

Register a new evidence in a group — the first step of a 2-step upload (register, then PUT the file bytes to the returned upload URL). Use for each file you want to add to an OPEN evidence group.

Instructions

Register a new evidence in a group — the first step of a 2-step upload (register, then PUT the file bytes to the returned upload URL). Use for each file you want to add to an OPEN evidence group. Requires: evidence_group_create → evidenceGroupId, evidence_case_file_create → caseFileId, and the file's SHA-256 hash (compute it before calling, or use the evidence_create_sealed composite tool which does this for you). Do not call evidence_group_close until every registered evidence's bytes have been uploaded. Custody type: INTERNAL = EAD Factory stores and custodies the file itself. | EXTERNAL = The file lives outside EAD Factory — you attest to its hash only, EAD Factory never stores the bytes. Testimony (qualified proof) provider family: TSP = Trusted Service Provider — eIDAS-qualified electronic timestamp; the legally strongest proof tier. | DLT = Distributed Ledger Technology — blockchain-anchored proof; immutable and independently verifiable.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`hash`	Yes
`type`	No
`title`	No
`fileName`	No
`fileSize`	No
`metadata`	No
`createdBy`	No
`testimony`	Yes
`capturedAt`	Yes
`caseFileId`	Yes	MANDATORY. UUID of the parent case file. Obtain from evidence_case_file_create.
`evidenceId`	Yes	MANDATORY. UUID of the evidence record. Obtain from evidence_group_evidence_register or generate_evidence.
`custodyType`	Yes
`deletionDate`	No
`deletionType`	No
`evidenceGroupId`	Yes	MANDATORY. UUID of the evidence group. Obtain from evidence_group_create.
`requiredTestimonyProviders`	Yes

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`url`	No
`expiration`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed2 schema fields changedv1.4.0Sep 14, 2026

changedInput schema / properties / capturedAt / pattern

Previous value: -"^(?:(?:\\d\\d[2468][048]|\\d\\d[13579][26]|\\d\\d0[48]|[02468][048]00|[13579][26]00)-02-29|\\d{4}-(?:(?:0[13578]|1[02])-(?:0[1-9]|[12]\\d|3[01])|(?:0[469]|11)-(?:0[1-9]|[12]\\d|30)|(?:02)-(?:0[1-9]|1\\d|2[0-8])))T(?:(?:[01]\\d|2[0-3]):[0-5]\\d(?::[0-5]\\d(?:\\.\\d+)?)?(?:Z))$"New value: +"^(?:(?:\\d\\d[2468][048]|\\d\\d[13579][26]|\\d\\d0[48]|[02468][048]00|[13579][26]00)-02-29|\\d{4}-(?:(?:0[13578]|1[02])-(?:0[1-9]|[12]\\d|3[01])|(?:0[469]|11)-(?:0[1-9]|[12]\\d|30)|(?:02)-(?:0[1-9]|1\\d|2[0-8])))T(?:(?:[01]\\d|2[0-3]):[0-5]\\d:[0-5]\\d(?:\\.\\d+)?(?:Z))$"

changedInput schema / properties / deletionDate / anyOf

Previous value: -[
-  {
-    "format": "date-time",
-    "pattern": "^(?:(?:\\d\\d[2468][048]|\\d\\d[13579][26]|\\d\\d0[48]|[02468][048]00|[13579][26]00)-02-29|\\d{4}-(?:(?:0[13578]|1[02])-(?:0[1-9]|[12]\\d|3[01])|(?:0[469]|11)-(?:0[1-9]|[12]\\d|30)|(?:02)-(?:0[1-9]|1\\d|2[0-8])))T(?:(?:[01]\\d|2[0-3]):[0-5]\\d(?::[0-5]\\d(?:\\.\\d+)?)?(?:Z))$",
-    "type": "string"
-  },
-  {
-    "type": "null"
-  }
-]New value: +[
+  {
+    "format": "date-time",
+    "pattern": "^(?:(?:\\d\\d[2468][048]|\\d\\d[13579][26]|\\d\\d0[48]|[02468][048]00|[13579][26]00)-02-29|\\d{4}-(?:(?:0[13578]|1[02])-(?:0[1-9]|[12]\\d|3[01])|(?:0[469]|11)-(?:0[1-9]|[12]\\d|30)|(?:02)-(?:0[1-9]|1\\d|2[0-8])))T(?:(?:[01]\\d|2[0-3]):[0-5]\\d:[0-5]\\d(?:\\.\\d+)?(?:Z))$",
+    "type": "string"
+  },
+  {
+    "type": "null"
+  }
+]

First observedv1.3.1Aug 5, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations only indicate non-read-only and non-destructive; the description adds substantial behavioral context: the two-step register-then-PUT workflow, the returned upload URL, the close-group constraint, and the custody/testimony semantics. This meaningfully shapes how an agent should sequence and invoke the tool.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Front-loaded with the core purpose, then prerequisites, then workflow warning, then enum definitions. It is dense and somewhat long, but every sentence carries useful information and the structure is logical.

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?

For a complex 16-param, 8-required, multi-step tool, it covers the workflow, prerequisites, and key domain concepts, and the output schema handles return values. But the 'Requires' list omits evidenceId even though it is mandatory, and the link between requiredTestimonyProviders and the testimony provider families is not made explicit, leaving gaps for a fully correct call.

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 description coverage is only 19%, so the description must compensate. It explains custodyType (INTERNAL vs EXTERNAL), testimony families (TSP vs DLT), and the hash prerequisite. However, it leaves several mandatory params like evidenceId, capturedAt, and requiredTestimonyProviders largely to inference, so the compensation is only partial.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Register a new evidence in a group', and frames it as the first step of a 2-step upload. It also distinguishes itself from the evidence_create_sealed composite and from later upload/close steps, so an agent can tell it apart from siblings.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

Explicitly says 'Use for each file you want to add to an OPEN evidence group', names the evidence_create_sealed alternative, and warns not to call evidence_group_close until bytes are uploaded. It lacks an explicit when-not-to-use list, but the OPEN qualifier and named alternative provide clear routing.

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

Deploy Server