Cortex MCP

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

cortex_add_evidence

Record evidence and its claimed provenance for an existing claim, capturing source type, observation time, and whether it supports, contradicts, or is neutral to the claim.

Instructions

Record evidence and its claimed provenance for an existing claim.

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": {
      "project_id": "<project_id>",
      "claim_id": "<claim_id>",
      "source_type": "<source_type>",
      "observed_at": "<observed_at>",
      "relation": "<relation>",
      "content_summary": "<content_summary>"
    },
    "name": "cortex_add_evidence"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Default
`origin`	No	agent_reported
`claim_id`	Yes
`relation`	Yes
`collector`	No
`project_id`	Yes
`source_ref`	No
`observed_at`	Yes
`source_type`	Yes
`criterion_id`	No
`artifact_digest`	No
`content_summary`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`assurance`	Yes
`provenance`	Yes
`evidence_id`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Nov 7, 2026

TDQS

C2.5/5.0

Behavior1/5

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full burden for a write operation and provides almost nothing: no permissions, no idempotency or duplicate handling, no behavior when claim_id is unknown, and no indication of whether the evidence is validated or merely stored as asserted. The single useful signal, that provenance is only "claimed," is buried and unexplained.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler, though the brevity here reflects under-specification rather than disciplined compression.

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

Completeness2/5

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 need not be described, but for an 11-parameter unannotated mutation tool the description is far too thin. It gives no guidance on required provenance fields, enum meanings, or failure modes, leaving the agent to guess at a complex call.

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% across 11 parameters, and the description explains none of them. Three enums (origin, relation, source_type) and fields like artifact_digest and criterion_id carry semantics an agent cannot recover from the schema alone, so the description should have compensated but does not.

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?

The description gives a specific verb+resource pair, "record evidence," scoped to "an existing claim," which is clear enough to distinguish it from cortex_create_claim and the assumption tools. It stops short of naming any sibling or explicitly contrasting its role in the claim workflow.

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?

There is no statement of when to attach evidence versus recording it elsewhere, no mention that the referenced claim must already exist beyond the phrase "existing claim," and no alternatives or preconditions. An agent must infer usage entirely from the name and sibling list.

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

Deploy Server