EAD Enterprise Suite MCP Server

case_file_create

Creates a case file as the top-level container for related operations. Call this first to obtain the caseFileId required for all subsequent actions.

Instructions

Creates a new case file — the top-level container for all related operations (evidence, notifications, signatures, dossiers). Call this first before any other operation. Generate a UUID v4 for id. Returns caseFileId needed for all subsequent calls.

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": {
      "id": "<id>",
      "name": "<name>",
      "useCaseId": "<useCaseId>"
    },
    "name": "case_file_create"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`id`	Yes
`name`	Yes
`reference`	No
`useCaseId`	Yes
`description`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.6.1Jul 29, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false, aligning with the create operation described. The description adds value by instructing the agent to generate a UUID v4 for 'id' and stating the return value (caseFileId), which goes beyond the schema's validation pattern.

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?

Three concise sentences with no superfluous content. The first sentence defines purpose, second provides usage order, and third gives key parameter instruction and return value.

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?

Given 5 parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers the tool's role and sequencing but omits error scenarios, auth requirements, and detailed return format, leaving gaps for a complete understanding.

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%, so the description must clarify parameters. It only explains the 'id' parameter (generate UUID v4) and does not cover 'name', 'reference', 'useCaseId', or 'description', leaving their semantics unclear.

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?

The description clearly states the tool creates a case file and identifies it as the top-level container for all related operations, distinguishing it from sibling tools like case_file_list and case_file_get.

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?

The description explicitly instructs to call this tool first before any other operation and mentions the returned caseFileId is needed for subsequent calls, providing clear sequence guidance. It lacks explicit when-not-to-use instructions but effectively communicates its role.

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

Deploy Server