get_verificationRetrieves a previously run CitationSafe verification (by the verificationId returned from verify_citation/verify_document, or from a citationsafe.com/v/{id} share link) and returns its full per-citation results.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Verification ID |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true; description adds that it returns full per-citation results and the source of the ID. No contradictions.
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?
Single, well-structured sentence that is front-loaded and contains no unnecessary 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 single parameter and no output schema, it adequately describes what the tool does and returns. Could mention output size or pagination but not necessary for this simple tool.
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 covers 100% with UUID format; description adds semantic meaning: the ID comes from specific actions or share links, going beyond the 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?
Description clearly states it retrieves a past verification by ID and returns full per-citation results. It distinguishes from sibling tools like verify_citation/verify_document which run new verifications.
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?
Provides specific sources for the ID (from verification actions or share link), implying when to use. Lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternatives, but context is sufficient.
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 operation: citation verification on pasted text, on document URLs, batch verification, retrieving past results, and searching sanctions. No overlap in purpose.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with underscores (e.g., verify_citation, batch_verify_citations, search_sanctions), making the tool set predictable.
Five tools is well-scoped for citation verification: single, document, batch, retrieval, and sanctions search. No redundant or excessive tools.
Core verification workflows (single, document, batch, retrieval) are covered. A listing endpoint for all verifications is missing but not critical for typical use.