Skip to main content
Glama

HypePaper

library_find_contradictions

Your personal library: Find claims that contradict the input. Pass either a claim kg_node id (returns contradictions of that single claim) or a HypePaper papers.id (returns contradictions of any of the paper's claims). Walks 'contradicts_claim' edges in either direction. [Free · 1 credit]

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "claim_id_or_paper_id": "<claim_id_or_paper_id>"
    },
    "name": "library_find_contradictions"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
claim_id_or_paper_idYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the 'contradicts_claim' edge walk in either direction and the credit cost, but it does not state whether the operation is read-only, what authentication the personal library requires, or what the result looks like.

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 front-loaded and compact: purpose first, then input modes, traversal behavior, and cost. Every sentence adds useful information with no filler.

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?

For a one-parameter lookup, it covers purpose, input semantics, traversal behavior, and cost well. It is nearly complete, though the absence of an output schema means a brief note on the returned contradiction fields would improve it.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters5/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema defines only an undescribed string parameter, and the description fully compensates. It identifies both accepted ID types and explains the different scope each produces: contradictions of a single claim versus contradictions of any of the paper's claims.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Find claims that contradict the input.' It also names the personal-library scope and explains the two input modes, making the operation distinct from generic search or listing tools.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description explains the two invocation modes (claim kg_node id vs HypePaper papers.id), but it gives no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and names no alternative tool for related lookups. Usage is implied rather than directed.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources