Skip to main content
Glama

check_document

Read-onlyIdempotent

A whole document in one call: the claims that can be verified against a primary source, each answered by the door that owns it with its own signed receipt, plus one receipt over the document. Extraction is mechanical, so the claim list and the count are reproducible from your document alone — nothing is inferred. This rail answers the first 5 claims for a flat US$0.25 (5 cents a claim); a better-funded document goes to the pack-funded HTTP door (POST /document, up to 25 claims at the same 5 cents a claim), whose free preview lists the claims and the price before anything is charged — use it first if you are unsure the document holds anything checkable. This door reads PROSE: to check a bare list of references or package versions, use verify_bulk, and a single claim belongs to check_figure, check_entity, verify_citation or verify_package. Comes with an Ed25519-signed receipt covering the question, the verdict, the sources and the time, checkable offline against the published key at /.well-known/factstamp-issuer.json — so the check itself can be audited later by someone who was not here.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
documentYesThe document text. Only sentences that name something we cover AND carry the value to check become claims; everything else is reported as considered.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Added

TDQS

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/openWorld, but the description adds substantial context beyond them: flat pricing (US$0.25 for the first 5 claims, 5 cents per claim), a reproducible/mechanical extraction guarantee ('nothing is inferred'), and an Ed25519-signed, offline-auditable receipt with the published key URL. These are material behaviors an agent could not infer from the annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Front-loaded with the core capability, then pricing, then alternatives, then receipt auditability — a sensible order. The prose is flowery and dense ('the door that owns it', 'a better-funded document'), but nearly every clause carries routing, pricing, or audit information rather than filler.

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?

With no output schema, the description fully covers the return shape (per-claim receipts plus one document receipt), the input constraint (prose), cost, and determinism. Combined with annotations that already cover safety, an agent has everything needed to invoke it correctly.

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?

Only one parameter and the schema already documents it at 100% coverage (baseline 3). The description adds input-type meaning by stating 'This door reads PROSE,' effectively constraining what the document argument should contain, which is more than the schema states.

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?

States a specific verb and resource — checking a whole document — and immediately characterizes the output as verifiable claims answered with signed receipts plus a document-level receipt. It explicitly distinguishes itself from siblings (verify_bulk, check_figure, check_entity, verify_citation, verify_package), so an agent can route without opening any schema.

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?

Gives explicit when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance: prose documents go here, bare reference/package lists go to verify_bulk, and single claims go to the specific check_* tools. It even routes uncertain callers to the free-preview HTTP door first. Alternatives and their selecting conditions are named.

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