Skip to main content
Glama
tribeunal

Tribeunal Decision-Making Platform

Official
by tribeunal
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

List evidence

tribeunal_list_evidence
Read-onlyIdempotent

List a case's evidence, returning comments and case files with type, rating, and marking info. Provide a case UUID to get the evidence array.

Instructions

List a case's evidence — comments and case files the owner or a jury member marked, tagged {kind: comment|file}, plus pre-migration unmarked rows as kind: legacy. Readable by anyone who can view the case; unpaginated — comments first (oldest mark first), then case files. A comment's description is its full text; uuid matches its id in tribeunal_list_comments and tribeunal_update_comment. Only case files carry a rating (net up-minus-down from tribeunal_rate_evidence); comments' rating is always null. Mark/unmark with tribeunal_mark_evidence / tribeunal_unmark_evidence. Returns {evidence: [{uuid, kind, title, description, url, type, rating, markedBy, createdAt}]}.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
caseIdYesCase UUID (the uuid field from tribeunal_get_case or tribeunal_search_cases — not a numeric id or slug).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv2.0.0
    • changedInput schema / properties / caseId / description
      Previous value: -"Case UUID to get evidence for"New value: +"Case UUID (the uuid field from tribeunal_get_case or tribeunal_search_cases — not a numeric id or slug)."
  2. First observedv1.13.0

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already mark readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, but the description goes much further by disclosing ordering, legacy rows, rating semantics, uuid linkage to comments, and the exact return shape. This is exactly the behavioral context an agent needs beyond the annotations.

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?

The description is dense but every sentence carries distinct value: scope, access, ordering, field meaning, cross-tool identifiers, rating behavior, and return structure. It is longer than average but the tool's nuances justify each clause; there is no filler.

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?

Even though there is no output schema, the description provides the return object shape and field list. It also covers permissions, pagination, ordering, legacy data, rating semantics, and related tool names, so an agent has everything needed to invoke and interpret the tool.

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?

The single parameter caseId is already exhaustively documented in the input schema, including its UUID format, source fields, and non-numeric caveat. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, so the baseline 3 applies because the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'List a case's evidence'. It defines what evidence includes, distinguishes kind values (comment, file, legacy), and differentiates this from sibling tribeunal_list_comments by explaining scope.

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?

It gives clear usage context: readable by anyone who can view the case, unpaginated, comments first then files. It does not explicitly name an alternative to use instead, but it explains relationships to related evidence tools well enough for an agent to choose correctly.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools