SuperSkill

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

evidence

Destructive

Log and retrieve ticket proof for audit trails: add command runs with exit code, output, commit, and timestamp; list saved items by ticket.

Instructions

Record and read ticket evidence. Actions: add, list. Evidence is appended to projects//evidence/.jsonl with command, exit code, truncated output, commit, and timestamp.

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": {
      "action": "<action>",
      "ticket": "<ticket>"
    },
    "name": "evidence"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`ts`	No	ISO timestamp (default: now)
`cwd`	No	Directory used for the git HEAD lookup
`exit`	No	Exit code (default 0)
`limit`	No	Max items for list (default 50, cap 500)
`action`	Yes	Evidence action
`commit`	No	Commit the evidence applies to (default: git HEAD of cwd)
`output`	No	Command output (truncated when stored)
`ticket`	Yes	Ticket id e.g. ticket-001
`command`	No	Command that was run (required for add)
`project`	No	Project slug (auto-detected if omitted)
`workspace_path`	No	Absolute thread workspace directory; must map to this project. Omit only when the server cwd is the thread workspace.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed2 schema fields changedv0.15.1Oct 15, 2026

changedInput schema / properties / exit / type

Previous value: -"number"New value: +"integer"

addedInput schema / properties / workspace_path

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Absolute thread workspace directory; must map to this project. Omit only when the server cwd is the thread workspace.",
+  "type": "string"
+}

Addedv0.13.0Oct 12, 2026

TDQS

B3.4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Beyond the destructiveHint annotation, the description discloses where data lands (projects/<slug>/evidence/<ticket>.jsonl) and what is stored (command, exit code, truncated output, commit, timestamp), including the append semantics. It doesn't explain how the destructiveHint interacts with an append-only model or mention workspace_path mapping requirements, but the storage behavior is well conveyed.

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?

Two tight sentences, front-loading the purpose and available actions before the storage detail. Nothing is wasteful, though the second sentence is information-dense and could be slightly more scannable.

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 an 11-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, actions, and storage adequately, but leaves gaps around the workspace_path mapping constraint and how list results are shaped. It is minimum-viable rather than fully complete.

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 100%, so all 11 parameters are already documented in the schema. The description mentions the stored fields but adds no syntax, defaults, or format detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb+resource pair ('Record and read ticket evidence') and enumerates the two actions (add, list), so the agent knows exactly what it does. It doesn't differentiate itself from siblings like tickets or spec, but the resource is distinctive enough that confusion is unlikely.

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?

Lists the actions but gives no guidance on when to record evidence versus when to read it, nor when to prefer this over sibling tools like tickets or capture. Usage is entirely implicit.

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