evidence-ledger-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

update_record

Modify fields in an evidence record, remove fields with null, propagate claim/importance changes across related ledgers, and preserve original provenance while blocking invalid or withdrawn edits.

Instructions

Change fields of one record and return it. changes is merged into the record; a null value removes a field. id, withdrawn, quote_hash and provenance cannot be changed, and a withdrawn record cannot be edited. A new quote gets a new quote_hash; a removed one drops it. The record's provenance is not touched: it records the original assessment (who, which model, which manuscript revision, when), not later edits. A change to claim or importance is copied to every record with the same claim_id; a claim may span related ledgers, so pass their paths as related (the same list every time) to update its records there too. The same checks as add_record apply to every affected ledger, and nothing is written when one fails.

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": {
      "path": "<path>",
      "id": "<id>",
      "changes": "<changes>"
    },
    "name": "update_record"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`id`	Yes
`path`	Yes
`changes`	Yes
`related`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Addedv0.5.0Nov 3, 2026

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so: it discloses merge semantics, that null deletes a field, that quote changes regenerate or drop quote_hash, that provenance is deliberately preserved, that claim/importance edits fan out to all records with the same claim_id across ledgers, and that the operation is atomic ('nothing is written when one fails'). This is exactly the behavior an agent cannot get from structured fields.

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 action, then progressively more specific constraints. Dense but every sentence adds real constraint information; the provenance sentence is slightly long-winded but justifies itself by explaining why it is immutable.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a mutation tool with four parameters, no annotations, and an output schema already covering the return value, the description supplies immutability rules, cross-ledger side effects, and failure atomicity. An agent has enough to call this correctly, including when not to call it.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does for the two non-obvious parameters: `changes` is a merge patch where null removes, and `related` is a list of ledger paths that must stay stable across calls. `path` and `id` are only loosely characterized ('one record', 'a claim may span related ledgers'), leaving the path/id distinction under-specified.

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?

Opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Change fields of one record and return it.' The phrase 'one record' implicitly distinguishes it from the sibling update_records, but update_records is never named, so the agent must infer the singular/plural split.

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?

Gives concrete when-conditions: immutable fields (id, withdrawn, quote_hash, provenance) are enumerated, and withdrawn records are declared non-editable. It also explains when to pass `related` (claim spanning multiple ledgers) and the requirement to pass the same list every time. It does not route the agent to alternatives like update_records or create_ledger, which keeps it below a 5.

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

Deploy Server