Verify whether a supplied public source supports a specific factual claim before an agent relies on it.
Verify one atomic factual claim against one public source URL. Return supported, contradicted, or insufficient-evidence with source snippets, or explicit blocked/unreachable/unsupported states. Not a general fact checker.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | Public HTTP or HTTPS source page URL to inspect. | |
| claim | Yes | One atomic factual assertion to check against that source only. |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| claim | Yes | The claim that was checked. |
| verdict | Yes | supported, contradicted, or insufficient_evidence. |
| evidence | Yes | Compact source snippets used for the verdict. |
| final_url | Yes | Final URL after redirects. |
| source_url | Yes | Requested source URL. |
| content_hash | Yes | Hash of retrieved source content. |
| retrieved_at | Yes | UTC timestamp of the check. |
| source_status | Yes | verified, blocked, unreachable, unsupported, or insufficient_evidence. |
| service_version | Yes | Source Claim Proof service version. |
| retrieval_method | Yes | How the source page was fetched. |
| reasoning_summary | Yes | Short machine-readable reason for the verdict. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Beyond annotations (readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, non-destructive), the description discloses return behavior: 'supported, contradicted, or insufficient-evidence with source snippets, or explicit blocked/unreachable/unsupported states.' This gives the agent critical expectations about edge cases and output format, adding meaningful transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences: the first states the core function, the second outlines output states and scope boundaries. No unnecessary words, front-loaded with the most critical information, and every sentence earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (two parameters, no nested objects, no siblings), the description covers all critical aspects: claim atomicity, source URL constraints, output states, and non-general scope. The output schema exists, but the description still explains return values, making it comprehensive for agent decision-making.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, with both url and claim fully described in the input schema. The description adds little beyond the schema, merely echoing 'public source URL' and 'atomic' already present. Baseline 3 is appropriate since structured fields carry the semantic weight.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function: 'Verify one atomic factual claim against one public source URL.' It uses a specific verb (verify) and resource (claim vs. URL), and explicitly excludes broader scope with 'Not a general fact checker,' making its purpose unambiguous even without siblings.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear constraints: 'one atomic factual claim' and 'one public source URL,' and explicitly distinguishes from general fact checkers. However, no alternative tools are named, so it lacks explicit 'when-to-use-this-over-that' guidance, though this is mitigated by the absence of siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
verify_source_claim1 field changedOutput schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "additionalProperties": false,
+ "properties": {
+ "claim": {
+ "description": "The claim that was checked.",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "content_hash": {
+ "description": "Hash of retrieved source content.",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "evidence": {
+ "description": "Compact source snippets used for the verdict.",
+ "items": {
+ "additionalProperties": false,
+ "properties": {
+ "evidence_type": {
+ "description": "Where the snippet came from on the source page.",
+ "enum": [
+ "visible_text",
+ "heading",
+ "json_ld",
+ "meta",
+ "status"
+ ],
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "location": {
+ "description": "Page location of the snippet, or null if unknown.",
+ "type": [
+ "string",
+ "null"
+ ]
+ },
+ "polarity": {
+ "description": "Whether the snippet supports, contradicts, or is neutral.",
+ "enum": [
+ "supports",
+ "contradicts",
+ "neutral"
+ ],
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "text": {
+ "description": "Source snippet that supports or contradicts the claim.",
+ "maxLength": 240,
+ "type": "string"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "text",
+ "location",
+ "evidence_type",
+ "polarity"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "maxItems": 3,
+ "type": "array"
+ },
+ "final_url": {
+ "description": "Final URL after redirects.",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "reasoning_summary": {
+ "description": "Short machine-readable reason for the verdict.",
+ "maxLength": 400,
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "retrieval_method": {
+ "description": "How the source page was fetched.",
+ "enum": [
+ "direct_http",
+ "browser_run",
+ "official_api",
+ "unsupported"
+ ],
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "retrieved_at": {
+ "description": "UTC timestamp of the check.",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "service_version": {
+ "description": "Source Claim Proof service version.",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "source_status": {
+ "description": "verified, blocked, unreachable, unsupported, or insufficient_evidence.",
+ "enum": [
+ "verified",
+ "blocked",
+ "unreachable",
+ "unsupported",
+ "insufficient_evidence"
+ ],
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "source_url": {
+ "description": "Requested source URL.",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "verdict": {
+ "description": "supported, contradicted, or insufficient_evidence.",
+ "enum": [
+ "supported",
+ "contradicted",
+ "insufficient_evidence"
+ ],
+ "type": "string"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "verdict",
+ "claim",
+ "source_url",
+ "final_url",
+ "source_status",
+ "evidence",
+ "reasoning_summary",
+ "retrieval_method",
+ "retrieved_at",
+ "content_hash",
+ "service_version"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+}verify_source_claimClaiming proves that you control a remote MCP connector. It does not move, proxy, or interrupt the server.
Open the connector listing, choose Claim ownership, and sign in to Glama.
Complete one verification method:
GitHub identity — fastest for official registry listings. For a namespace such as io.github.alice/server, link the matching GitHub user, then choose Claim with GitHub. An organization namespace such as io.github.acme/server also needs that organization to have installed the Glama AI GitHub App and approved its permissions, because GitHub discloses organization membership only to apps it has installed. Use HTTP or DNS when it has not.
HTTP challenge — works when you can deploy a public file. Generate a token, publish the exact JSON Glama shows at /.well-known/glama.json on the same origin as the connector, then choose Check HTTP challenge.
DNS challenge — works when you control DNS but cannot change the server. Generate a token, create the exact TXT record Glama shows, wait for it to propagate, then choose Check DNS challenge.
After verification, Glama sends a confirmation email and gives you access to listing details, thumbnails, health checks, and analytics. Keep the HTTP file or DNS record in place: Glama periodically checks it and ownership remains verified while the token is discoverable.
The HTTP ownership file has this structure:
{
"$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/connector.json",
"claim": "glama_claim_..."
}Claim tokens are opaque, stable, and bound to the signed-in Glama account. They contain no email address or other personal information. If Glama can no longer discover a verified HTTP or DNS token, it starts a seven-day grace period before removing claim-based access. Restore the same token during that period to keep ownership verified. Never publish an email address, Glama session token, GitHub token, or connector credential as ownership proof.
If verification fails, confirm that you copied the current token exactly. The HTTP file must be public, return valid JSON with a successful HTTP response, and stay on the connector's origin. DNS changes may need more time to propagate. A claim cannot transfer to a different origin or hostname: if the connector target changes, Glama starts the grace period and the new target must be claimed separately after the previous claim is released.
For a connector linked to the official MCP Registry, registry updates continue to replace its name, description, and URL by default. After claiming, open Manage connector and enable Use Glama listing details as the source of truth if edits made on Glama should be preserved. Categories and thumbnails are always managed on Glama; registry linkage and technical connection settings continue to sync.
Control your server's listing on Glama, including description and metadata
Access analytics and receive server usage reports
Get monitoring and health status updates for your server
Feature your server to boost visibility and reach more users
To improve your MCP server's ranking:
Claim ownership of the server listing
Complete the server profile with an accurate description and thumbnail
Provide a test profile so Glama can connect to and evaluate the server
Keep tool definitions clear and complete to earn a high Tool Definition Quality Score (TDQS)
Route real usage through the Glama Gateway; more recorded successful server uses also improve the ranking
For users:
Full audit trail – every tool call is logged with inputs and outputs for compliance and debugging
Granular tool control – enable or disable individual tools per connector to limit what your AI agents can do
Centralized credential management – store and rotate API keys and OAuth tokens in one place
Change alerts – get notified when a connector changes its schema, adds or removes tools, or updates tool definitions, so nothing breaks silently
For server owners:
Proven adoption – public usage metrics on your listing show real-world traction and build trust with prospective users
Tool-level analytics – see which tools are being used most, helping you prioritize development and documentation
Direct user feedback – users can report issues and suggest improvements through the listing, giving you a channel you would not have otherwise
The connector status is unhealthy when Glama is unable to successfully connect to the server. This can happen for several reasons:
The server is experiencing an outage
The URL of the server is wrong
Credentials required to access the server are missing or invalid
If you are the owner of this MCP connector and would like to make modifications to the listing, including providing test credentials for accessing the server, please contact support@glama.ai.
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Only one tool exists, so there is no possibility of ambiguity. The tool's purpose is clearly defined as verifying a single claim against a single source URL.
With a single tool, naming consistency is trivially satisfied. The name 'verify_source_claim' uses a clear verb_noun pattern and accurately describes its function.
One tool is extremely thin for a server dedicated to source claim verification. A complete tool surface would likely require at least separate tools for claim submission, source management, and result retrieval, making this count inappropriate.
The server has a single tool that only verifies a claim against one URL. Missing are capabilities such as batch verification, claim history, source reputation checks, or result caching, leaving significant gaps for any real workflow.