Skip to main content
Glama
doings-evidence-mcp

doings-evidence-mcp

by Marcwarn

Doings Evidence MCP

v0.9 Thinking Interface

The default user-facing tool is now think_with_evidence. It helps Doings users think, phrase, challenge and make organizational arguments client-safe. It builds on the evidence engine, but adds:

  • argument mapping,

  • solution-first detection,

  • Doings voice rewriting,

  • client-safe language,

  • evidence-to-language translation,

  • learning nudges that teach better reasoning patterns.

Example:

{
  "input": "We think the client needs a flatter organization to become faster.",
  "context": "Nordic professional-services company, 50-150 employees, project-based client delivery",
  "mode": "thinking_partner"
}

The tool should respond by mapping the reasoning, flagging solution-first risk, asking where speed is actually lost, and producing Doings-voice and client-safe language.

See docs/v0.9-thinking-interface.md.

Local MCP server for critical evidence assessment of organization-design, leadership and transformation claims.

Current version: 0.11.0

Related MCP server: tru8-mcp

v0.11 deployment chain

v0.11 adds a GitHub -> Azure -> remote MCP deployment chain:

  • GitHub Actions workflow for Azure Container Apps

  • Bicep infrastructure template

  • remote MCP smoke test

  • deployment runbook

Start with docs/deploy-chain-runbook.md.

Purpose

Doings Evidence MCP is a critical evidence editor for organizational thinking. It helps Doings distinguish between:

  • academic research

  • internal experience / IP

  • practical heuristics

  • unsupported consulting claims

  • claims that are plausible but overstated

  • text that is usable only with caveats and safer wording

It is not a recommendation generator and it is not a systematic literature review engine.

v0.9 highlights

v0.9 adds a user-facing critique layer on top of the v0.7 evidence engine:

  • intent detection for rough user questions and draft text

  • critique modes: quick_check, rewrite_safely, red_team, evidence_brief

  • critique_org_text tool for day-to-day consulting text

  • can_we_say_this fast check alias

  • consulting-language risk detector

  • safer-phrasing generator

  • narrative response layer that explains what to say, what to avoid and why

Core tools

critique_org_text

Best default tool for human questions, pitch/RFP sentences, rough consulting text and “can we say this?” prompts.

Example:

{
  "input": "Autonomous teams unlock agility and reduce the need for middle management.",
  "context": "Nordic professional-services company, 50-150 employees, project-based client delivery, senior expert dependency.",
  "mode": "auto",
  "includeRawCritique": false
}

Output includes:

  • detected user intent

  • selected critique mode

  • primary claim extracted from the text

  • consulting-language risk

  • narrative answer

  • safer version

  • caveats and warnings

can_we_say_this

Fast practical check for whether a claim or draft sentence is safe enough to say. It uses the same schema as critique_org_text but defaults to practical quick-check behavior.

critique_claim

Research-heavy tool for a specific explicit claim.

Example:

{
  "claim": "Autonomous teams make organizations more agile and reduce the need for middle management.",
  "context": "Nordic professional-services company, 50-150 employees, project-based client delivery, senior expert dependency.",
  "strictness": "high",
  "yearFrom": 2000,
  "maxPapers": 10,
  "fullTextMode": "open_access",
  "maxFullTextPapers": 3,
  "redTeamMode": true
}

Output includes:

  • decomposedClaims

  • levelOfAnalysis

  • levelAlignment

  • contextFit

  • studyTypeProfile

  • evidencePassages

  • redTeam

  • statusLabel: exploratory_evidence_scan_not_systematic_review

search_research_evidence

Searches OpenAlex and Semantic Scholar, optionally escalating to open-access full text.

fetch_doings_document

Fetches one SharePoint/OneDrive document, extracts local text when possible, and can classify, audit and validate high-risk claims.

audit_doings_document_claims

Audits raw text or SharePoint document text for research-checkable claims, nearby citation markers and high-risk unsupported claims.

Use:

{
  "validateHighRiskClaims": true,
  "validationFullTextMode": "open_access",
  "validationRedTeamMode": true
}

rate_evidence_quality

Returns a conservative heuristic rating with study-type profile and full-text coverage.

Critique modes

quick_check

For “kan vi säga detta?” or one rough claim.

Returns a short verdict, why it is risky or usable, safer wording and use-with-caution notes.

rewrite_safely

For pitch/RFP/report wording.

Returns a research-honest rewrite, what changed and what not to imply.

red_team

For finding the weak points.

Returns the most vulnerable assumption, likely skeptical objections, alternative explanations and a stress test.

evidence_brief

For “vad säger forskningen?”

Returns an evidence status, what is better supported, cautions, boundary conditions and safer formulation.

Run locally

npm install
npm run dev

Build:

npm run build
npm start

Environment

Copy .env.example to .env and configure Microsoft Graph if using SharePoint tools.

cp .env.example .env

Minimum SharePoint variables:

MS_TENANT_ID=...
MS_CLIENT_ID=...
MS_GRAPH_SCOPES=Files.Read.All Sites.Read.All offline_access

Research sources

  • OpenAlex for broad scholarly metadata and open-access locations

  • Semantic Scholar for additional academic search and abstracts

  • Open-access PDF/HTML/text fetching when available

Important limitations

This is an exploratory evidence scan, not a systematic literature review. It does not perform formal inclusion/exclusion coding, PRISMA-style review, quality appraisal by multiple reviewers or exhaustive full-text search. Treat outputs as a critical first-pass assessment.

v0.10 remote-ready deployment

v0.10 can run in two modes:

# Local MCP / STDIO
npm run build
npm run start

# Hosted MCP / Streamable HTTP
MCP_REQUIRE_AUTH=true MCP_BEARER_TOKEN=<token> npm run start:http

Hosted endpoints:

GET  /health
POST /mcp
GET  /mcp
DELETE /mcp

See:

docs/remote-mcp-azure.md
docs/github-setup.md
docs/v0.10-remote-ready.md
deployment/example-client-config.local.json
deployment/example-client-config.remote.json

Recommended path:

GitHub repo -> Azure Container Apps -> remote MCP URL -> ChatGPT / MCP-compatible client

Available Tools

15 tools
analyze_org_argumentC

Maps organizational reasoning into symptom, diagnosis, assumed cause, proposed solution, mechanism, desired outcome, missing links and better diagnostic questions.

Inputs: input (required).

audit_doings_document_claimsB

Audits SharePoint document text or raw text for research-checkable claims, citation markers, claims lacking explicit source support, and optionally runs research validation on high-risk claims.

Inputs: url, text, maxClaims, claimTypes, +9 more.

can_we_say_thisC

Fast practical check for whether an organizational claim or draft sentence is safe enough to say, with safer wording and caveats.

Inputs: input (required), context, mode, strictness, +6 more.

classify_claimsB

Extracts and classifies claims from text as causal, normative, diagnostic, descriptive or prescriptive.

Inputs: text (required), claimTypes.

compare_with_doings_knowledgeB

Compares a topic or claim with Doings SharePoint knowledge via Microsoft Graph and flags where internal material needs research review.

Inputs: topic (required), claim, context, maxDocuments.

critique_claimA

Critically assesses an organization-design or transformation claim against available research, attempting open-access full-text escalation by default. Includes claim decomposition, level-of-analysis checks, context-fit scoring, study-type classification, passage extraction and optional red-team mode. For user-facing wording use critique_org_text.

Inputs: claim (required), context, strictness, yearFrom, +5 more.

critique_org_textC

User-facing critique layer for rough consulting text, claims, pitch/RFP wording and research questions. Detects intent, chooses quick_check/rewrite_safely/red_team/evidence_brief, flags consulting-language risk and returns a narrative answer.

Inputs: input (required), context, mode, strictness, +6 more.

detect_solution_first_thinkingC

Flags when a draft jumps to an organizational solution before establishing the problem, evidence and causal mechanism.

Inputs: input (required).

fetch_doings_documentB

Fetches one SharePoint/OneDrive document by URL, extracts local text when possible, and optionally classifies, audits and research-validates high-risk claims.

Inputs: url (required), classifyClaims, auditCitations, validateHighRiskClaims, +9 more.

make_client_safeC

Turns an internal critique or rough claim into language that can be used in client dialogue without overclaiming.

Inputs: input (required), saferVersion, mainRisk, solutionFirst.

rate_evidence_qualityB

Rates evidence quality using a conservative heuristic: study type, causal strength, context fit, recency and bias risks.

Inputs: claim (required), context, papers.

rewrite_in_doings_voiceC

Rewrites text in a plain-spoken, evidence-honest, non-hype Doings voice.

Inputs: input (required), context.

search_doings_knowledgeB

Searches Doings SharePoint knowledge via Microsoft Graph. Treats internal documents as experience/IP, not academic evidence.

Inputs: query (required), maxDocuments, fetchTopDocuments.

search_research_evidenceC

Searches OpenAlex and Semantic Scholar for research relevant to a claim or topic, with optional open-access full-text escalation.

Inputs: query (required), context, yearFrom, maxResults, +4 more.

think_with_evidenceC

Default user-facing thinking interface. Helps users think, phrase, challenge and make organizational arguments client-safe using evidence-aware critique, argument mapping, solution-first detection, Doings voice, and evidence-to-language translation.

Inputs: input (required), context, mode, strictness, +6 more.

Tool Schema Changelog

Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Loading tool schema changelog…

    TDQS

    B3/5.0

    Scored across 15 tools

    Disambiguation4/5

    Most tools have clearly distinct purposes, such as critique_claim for research-intensive assessment vs. critique_org_text for user-facing text. However, can_we_say_this and make_client_safe both deal with safe wording, creating minor ambiguity.

    Naming Consistency4/5

    The majority follow a clear verb_noun pattern (e.g., analyze_org_argument, fetch_doings_document). Exceptions like can_we_say_this (a phrase) and think_with_evidence (slightly different) are minor deviations.

    Tool Count5/5

    With 15 tools, the set covers a broad domain of evidence-based consulting without being overwhelming. Each tool addresses a specific need, from argument analysis to evidence searching.

    Completeness4/5

    Core workflows are well-covered: claim analysis, evidence rating, internal and external searches, and text rewriting. Missing potentially useful features like document editing or report synthesis, but these are outside the stated scope.

    Maintenance

    ActivityInactive
    ResponsivenessNo recent community issues

    Related MCP Connectors

    Related MCP Servers

    • F
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      D
      maintenance
      A standalone MCP server that validates model output against retrieved sources. It flags any claim, statistic, attribution, quote, or URL that cannot be traced back to a real source.
      -
    • A
      license
      A
      quality
      C
      maintenance
      MCP server for Tru8 Evidence Research that enables AI agents to submit claims or URLs and receive source-traced evidence organized by tier and type with element decomposition and relationship mapping.
      3
      68 PyPI
      MIT
    • A
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      D
      maintenance
      MCP server that enforces evidence-graded, phase-gated, peer-reviewed research workflows for AI agents to conduct rigorous decision-making.
      1
      MIT
    • A
      license
      A
      quality
      D
      maintenance
      MCP server for verifying claims against evidence using natural language inference, providing verdicts like Supports, Refutes, or Not Enough Evidence.
      3
      50 npm
      1
      MIT