A
licenseA
qualityA
maintenanceEvidence-backed web research for AI agents. Real-time search with cited claims, confidence scores, and compare mode showing raw LLM hallucination vs evidence-backed answers.
5
20
Apache 2.0
Tru8 Evidence Research
Server Details
Source-traced evidence research for AI agents. We organise the evidence; you decide.
If you are the author of this connector, you can claim ownership with GitHub, an HTTP challenge, or a DNS record. Claimed connector authors can inspect health checks, view analytics, and manage their listing.
- Status
- Healthy
- Last Tested
- Transport
- Streamable HTTP
- URL
- Repository
- SamYatesSmith/Tru8
- GitHub Stars
- 0
Available Tools
3 toolstru8_checkAInspect
Evidence research for a factual claim or article URL.
Submit a claim as text or paste an article URL. URLs are auto-detected
and trigger article mode: the pipeline extracts claims from the page
and auto-selects up to 5 for evidence research.
Tiers (in fallback order):
- lookup (~£0.02, instant) — cached prior analysis
- consensus (~£0.03, instant) — cross-user aggregate landscape (k≥3 checks)
- quick (~£0.07, ~15s) — web search + heuristic classification
- full (~£0.15, ~60-90s) — web + specialist APIs, LLM classification, coverage recovery
Charges based on tier actually executed, not tier requested.
Identical calls within ten minutes return the same check, so a
transport retry never runs — or charges — twice.
Set max_tier to control maximum spend per call.
Output structure:
- claims[].claimMap.elements[] — verifiable sub-claims with state
(supported/disputed/unresolved)
- claims[].claimMap.elements[].evidenceRefs[] — evidence mapped to elements
with relationship (supports/challenges/context) and reasoning
- claims[].evidence[] — sources classified by tier (primary/reporting/
commentary) and type (data/official/news/analysis/opinion/academic)
- claims[].claimMap.orientation — mechanical summary from element states
- _meta — execution metadata: executedTier, chargedPence, limitations
Per-argument guidance lives on the parameters themselves (see the
Annotated/Field declarations above), which is where a client can actually
read it — a docstring "Args:" block never reaches the tool's inputSchema.
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| claim | Yes | A factual claim ("The Earth's average temperature rose 1.1°C since 1880") or an article URL (https://example.com/article). URLs are auto-detected and the pipeline extracts claims from the page content. | |
| compact | No | If true, strip the full evidence arrays and computed analytics from the response, leaving claims and claim maps. Smaller payload for agents that only need orientation. | |
| max_tier | No | Maximum tier to attempt — "lookup", "consensus", "quick" or "full" (default). A CEILING, not a floor: cached and consensus hits still return instantly at their own lower price, so the default costs ~£0.15 only for claims never researched before. Set "quick" to cap spend at ~£0.07, accepting web-search-only sourcing and heuristic classification (see _meta.limitations). | full |
| max_age_hours | No | Skip cache hits older than this many hours. Stale lookup hits are discarded and the pipeline re-runs at the next tier up to max_tier. 0 means never serve a cached result. |
Output Schema
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
TDQS
A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Beyond the annotations, the description discloses substantial behavioral detail: URL auto-detection, article mode with up to 5 auto-selected claims, tier fallback and pricing, the 10-minute deduplication guarantee, charge-on-executed-tier semantics, and output structure including _meta limitations. This is exactly the kind of context an agent needs to predict side effects and costs.
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 well-structured with clear sections, front-loaded purpose, and every block earning its place: submission modes, tiers, charging/dedup rules, and output shape. Despite its length, it is dense with actionable information and avoids fluff.
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?
For a complex multi-tier tool, the description is remarkably complete: it covers input modes, tier semantics, costs, caching behavior, output structure, and limitations via _meta. With a full input schema and output schema present, nothing essential is missing.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema already fully documents all four parameters with 100% coverage. The description adds beyond the schema by explaining tier fallback behavior, cost implications, and the ceiling semantics of max_tier, which sharpens an agent's understanding of how parameter choices affect execution and spend.
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?
Description opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Evidence research for a factual claim or article URL.' It clearly distinguishes this check tool from the sibling result-retrieval tools by describing the research pipeline and output, leaving no doubt that tru8_check initiates analysis rather than fetching prior results.
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 gives strong usage context: how to submit claims/URLs, how URL article mode works, the tier fallback order, and how max_tier controls spend. It does not explicitly contrast tru8_check with tru8_get_result or tru8_get_result_raw, but the operational guidance for when to use this tool and how to adjust tier behavior is clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
tru8_get_resultARead-onlyIdempotentInspect
Retrieve a previously submitted check with pre-computed analytics.
Returns the full result including a _computed block with tier/type
distributions, corroboration groups, diagnostic values, timeline
analysis, element state summaries, and per-claim dispositions.
Use this over tru8_get_result_raw when you want structured analytics
ready for summarisation or comparison without post-processing.
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| check_id | Yes | The check UUID returned by tru8_check. Retrieval is free and limited to your own checks; a check still running returns its status rather than a result, so this is also the poll call. |
Output Schema
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
TDQS
A4.2/5.0
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds the _computed block contents and the differentiation from the raw variant, but does not mention that a still-running check returns status rather than a result (that nuance lives in the parameter schema). This is acceptable but not deeply transparent on its own.
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?
Three sentences each earn their place: the first defines the action, the second enumerates return contents, the third gives usage guidance. No filler, front-loaded, and appropriately sized.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With a rich schema description, annotations, and an output schema present, the overall tool definition is quite complete. The description covers purpose, return contents, and alternative usage; only the polling behavior is left to the schema, which is acceptable. Missing error conditions or permission details, but those are not required.
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 schema has 100% coverage and the check_id description already explains that it's the UUID from tru8_check, mentions retrieval limits, and notes it serves as the poll call. The tool description adds no extra parameter semantics, so baseline 3 applies.
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 'Retrieve a previously submitted check with pre-computed analytics', clearly stating the verb and resource. It distinguishes this tool from tru8_get_result_raw by noting it returns structured analytics, making it easy to select the right tool.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly states 'Use this over tru8_get_result_raw when you want structured analytics ready for summarisation or comparison without post-processing', providing both a when-to-use condition and a named alternative.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
tru8_get_result_rawARead-onlyIdempotentInspect
Retrieve a previously submitted check without computed analytics.
Returns claims, elements, evidence, and claim maps only. No _computed
block. Smaller response payload. Use this when you will compute your
own aggregations or only need specific fields from the raw data.
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| check_id | Yes | The check UUID returned by tru8_check. Same retrieval as tru8_get_result, without the computed analytics block. |
Output Schema
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
TDQS
A4.5/5.0
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Beyond the readOnly/idempotent/destructive annotations, the description discloses valuable behavioral details: exactly which parts are returned (claims, elements, evidence, claim maps), what is excluded (no _computed block), and the consequence (smaller response payload). This gives the agent a clear expectation of the response content.
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 three sentences, each earning its place: the first states the core purpose, the second details return contents, and the third gives usage guidance. It is front-loaded with the key action and free of redundant text.
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?
For a simple one-parameter read-only tool, the description is comprehensive: it explains the action, return contents, and when to use it. The output schema is present, annotations cover safety, and the sibling names provide retrieval context. Nothing important is missing.
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 input schema has 100% coverage; the check_id parameter already has a clear description referencing tru8_check and tru8_get_result. The tool description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.
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 starts with a specific verb+resource+scope: 'Retrieve a previously submitted check without computed analytics.' It clearly differentiates from the sibling tool tru8_get_result by explicitly stating the absence of the _computed block and smaller payload.
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 explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Use this when you will compute your own aggregations or only need specific fields from the raw data.' It does not explicitly name the alternative tool or state when not to use it, but the context and schema reference to tru8_get_result make the alternative clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Tool Schema Changelog
Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
3 tool updates
- First observed
tru8_check - First observed
tru8_get_result - First observed
tru8_get_result_raw
Frequently Asked Questions
Claiming 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 asio.github.acme/serveralso 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.jsonon 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.
Discussions
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!
Related MCP Connectors
Verified, sourced, real-time intelligence layer for AI agents.
Real-time fact-check, citation verification, and source-freshness for AI agents.
Independent AI-agent reviews: trust checks, evidence scorecards, incident registry, recommendations.
Evidence-first trust verdicts for AI-agent services — query one before you transact.
Related MCP Servers
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityAmaintenanceMakes AI research agents accountable by giving every conclusion a traceable argument graph. Provides a persistent argument graph where claims require grounds and warrants for auditable, verifiable reasoning.2MIT
- AlicenseAqualityDmaintenanceUniversal Search-First Knowledge Acquisition Plugin for LLMs. Enables real-time web search and deep page browsing via MCP or CLI. Zero-cost, privacy-first, supports DuckDuckGo, Bing, Google, Brave, Wikipedia, Arxiv, YouTube, Reddit and more.21916MIT
- FlicenseNot gradedqualityCmaintenanceProvides AI agents and RAG pipelines with production-grade web search, deep research, news, academic, extraction, crawling, and source verification tools. Enables citation-anchored, deduplicated, fresh, and security-hardened evidence gathering from across the web.-
Try in Browser
Glama MCP Gateway
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
TDQS
A4.4/5.0
Disambiguation4/5
tru8_check is clearly the submission/analysis entry point, while tru8_get_result and tru8_get_result_raw both retrieve a previous check but are explicitly differentiated by whether computed analytics are included. The overlap is intentional and the descriptions make the choice clear.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tools share the tru8_ prefix and follow a consistent snake_case verb_noun pattern: check, get_result, get_result_raw. The raw suffix cleanly signals the variant without breaking the naming convention.
Tool Count5/5
Three tools is well-scoped for this service: one to submit an evidence check and two retrieval variants for different use cases. Each tool earns its place and there is no unnecessary bloat.
Completeness4/5
The core lifecycle of submitting a check and retrieving results is covered, including a raw option for custom processing. Minor gaps exist around discovering past checks or explicitly polling in-progress work, but the primary workflow has no dead ends.