list_evidenceRetrieve all registered evidence items, or filter by case number or UUID, to review what has been logged in a DFIR investigation.
List registered evidence items.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| case_id | No | Optional — filter by case number (e.g. "CASE-2026-001") or UUID. If omitted, returns all evidence across all cases. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It doesn't state whether this is a read-only operation, whether it paginates, what the return volume might be, or any auth requirements. For a list tool with no annotations, this is a significant gap.
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 concise and front-loaded, but it's so terse that it sacrifices useful context. It earns points for zero waste, but doesn't provide enough substance to be considered well-structured for a list tool.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values needn't be explained. The single optional parameter is fully documented in the schema. However, with no annotations and no behavioral context, the description is barely adequate for an agent to understand when and how to use this tool versus siblings like get_evidence or list_cases.
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% — the case_id parameter is fully documented in the schema including its optional nature, accepted formats (case number or UUID), and default behavior. The description adds no parameter information beyond what's already in the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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 clear verb+resource: listing registered evidence items. This distinguishes it from get_evidence (singular retrieval) and register_evidence (creation). However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with list_cases, the closest sibling, leaving some sibling differentiation implicit.
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?
The description implies usage (you call it to see a list of evidence), but provides no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and doesn't name alternatives like get_evidence for single-item retrieval. The optional case_id parameter's behavior is documented in the schema, not the description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.