Skip to main content
Glama

Source Claim Proof

by dev.workers.mattskowronis.source-claim-proof

Verify Source Claim

verify_source_claim
Read-onlyIdempotent

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.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
urlYesPublic HTTP or HTTPS source page URL to inspect.
claimYesOne atomic factual assertion to check against that source only.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
claimYesThe claim that was checked.
verdictYessupported, contradicted, or insufficient_evidence.
evidenceYesCompact source snippets used for the verdict.
final_urlYesFinal URL after redirects.
source_urlYesRequested source URL.
content_hashYesHash of retrieved source content.
retrieved_atYesUTC timestamp of the check.
source_statusYesverified, blocked, unreachable, unsupported, or insufficient_evidence.
service_versionYesSource Claim Proof service version.
retrieval_methodYesHow the source page was fetched.
reasoning_summaryYesShort machine-readable reason for the verdict.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • 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"
+}
  2. First observed

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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.

Conciseness5/5

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.

Completeness5/5

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.

Parameters3/5

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.

Purpose5/5

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.

Usage Guidelines4/5

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.

All Source Claim Proof toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

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.

Naming Consistency5/5

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.

Tool Count1/5

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.

Completeness1/5

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.

Resources