Resolve one claim by id, for example '617681-001' or 'kaal:claim:617681-001'. Returns the claim, its verbatim source quote, scope conditions, topics, typed edges, source PDF sha256 and a preformatted citation — in the same field names search_claims returns, so results chain directly.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| claim_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, etc. The description adds what the tool returns (claim, quote, scope, topics, edges, pdf hash, citation) and notes field name compatibility with search_claims, which is valuable beyond annotations.
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?
Two sentences, each earning its place: first states purpose and gives examples, second details return fields and chainability. No wasted words.
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 simple single-parameter tool and existence of output schema, the description covers the purpose, parameter format, and return compatibility. No gaps remain for effective use.
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 has 0% coverage for claim_id. The description compensates by giving concrete examples ('617681-001', 'kaal:claim:617681-001') and explaining the parameter's role, adding meaning beyond the bare schema.
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 'Resolve one claim by id' – a specific verb-resource pair. It distinguishes from sibling tools like search_claims by focusing on a single record and providing ID format examples.
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?
Describes when to use: when you have a claim ID. Mentions ID formats and compatibility with search_claims results. Lacks explicit 'do not use for bulk queries' or contrast with siblings like search_claims.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool targets a distinct resource or action: overviews, specific claims/papers, searches by different granularities, citation help, and document verification. No two tools overlap in purpose.
All tool names use lowercase snake_case with clear verb-noun or noun-preposition patterns (e.g., get_claim, search_papers, claim_layer_overview). The naming is uniform and predictable.
With 11 tools, the set covers the core operations for exploring a scholarly corpus without being excessive. Each tool serves a clear and necessary purpose.
The tools provide comprehensive coverage for discovering, retrieving, and verifying content from the corpus: overviews, searches at paper/claim/post level, direct retrieval, and document verification. No obvious missing operations for the intended use case.