DocImprint

Check Claims

check_claims

Read-onlyIdempotent

Verify a list of factual claims against document text. Uses a quality AI model with citation-level evidence. Use after extract_text or extract_url when you need to validate specific factual assertions. For open-ended questions about a document, use qa_url instead. For multi-document investigation, use ask_collection. Typical workflow: extract_text/extract_url → check_claims. Returns: { claims: [{ claim, status: "supported"|"contradicted"|"not_found", evidence: { quote, paragraphs[] }, confidence: "high"|"medium"|"low" }], truncated: boolean } Example prompts:

"Check whether this contract mentions a liability cap of $1M."
"Verify these claims against the document: [claims list]."
"Does the report actually say revenue grew 23%?"

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`text`	Yes	Document text to check claims against. Obtain via extract_text or extract_url. Example: "ACME Corp was founded in 2010. Revenue exceeded $1M in 2024."
`claims`	Yes	Factual statements to verify. Each claim is checked independently against the text. Example: ["Founded in 2010", "Revenue exceeded $1M"]
`max_tokens`	No	Input length cap (1 token ≈ 4 chars). Default ~3000 tokens. Truncates input text, not the output. Example: 4000

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`claims`	Yes
`truncated`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

AddedSep 29, 2026
RemovedJul 26, 2026

Changed1 schema field changedJul 10, 2026

changedOutput schema / (root)

Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "$schema": "http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#",
+  "additionalProperties": false,
+  "properties": {
+    "claims": {
+      "items": {
+        "additionalProperties": false,
+        "properties": {
+          "claim": {
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "confidence": {
+            "enum": [
+              "high",
+              "medium",
+              "low"
+            ],
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "evidence": {
+            "additionalProperties": false,
+            "properties": {
+              "paragraphs": {
+                "items": {
+                  "type": "number"
+                },
+                "type": "array"
+              },
+              "quote": {
+                "type": "string"
+              }
+            },
+            "required": [
+              "quote",
+              "paragraphs"
+            ],
+            "type": "object"
+          },
+          "status": {
+            "enum": [
+              "supported",
+              "contradicted",
+              "not_found"
+            ],
+            "type": "string"
+          }
+        },
+        "required": [
+          "claim",
+          "status",
+          "evidence",
+          "confidence"
+        ],
+        "type": "object"
+      },
+      "type": "array"
+    },
+    "truncated": {
+      "type": "boolean"
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "claims",
+    "truncated"
+  ],
+  "type": "object"
+}

Changed3 schema fields changedJun 24, 2026

changedInput schema / properties / claims / description

Previous value: -"Factual statements to verify, e.g. [\"Founded in 2010\", \"Revenue exceeded $1M\"]"New value: +"Factual statements to verify. Each claim is checked independently against the text. Example: [\"Founded in 2010\", \"Revenue exceeded $1M\"]"

changedInput schema / properties / max_tokens / description

Previous value: -"Input length cap (1 token ≈ 4 chars). Default ~3000 tokens. Truncates input, not output."New value: +"Input length cap (1 token ≈ 4 chars). Default ~3000 tokens. Truncates input text, not the output. Example: 4000"

changedInput schema / properties / text / description

Previous value: -"Document text to check claims against. Obtain via extract_text or extract_url."New value: +"Document text to check claims against. Obtain via extract_text or extract_url. Example: \"ACME Corp was founded in 2010. Revenue exceeded $1M in 2024.\""

First observedJun 10, 2026

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the safety profile is covered and the description only needs to add incrementally. It does add useful context (quality AI model, citation-level evidence, max_tokens truncates input not output), but it spends most of its length restating the return shape, which is redundant given the output schema exists. Net additive value is modest.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

The opening purpose sentence and the sibling-routing sentence are tightly front-loaded and earn their place. However, the verbatim 'Returns:' block duplicates the output schema already attached to the tool, and the three example prompts largely repeat the same pattern, adding bulk without new decision-relevant information.

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 3-parameter read-only tool with a full output schema and complete annotation coverage, the description supplies everything an agent needs: what it does, when to use it, which siblings to prefer instead, the upstream workflow, and worked examples. Nothing material 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so all three parameters are already fully documented with examples. The description adds no new syntax, format, or constraint information about text/claims/max_tokens beyond what the schema provides, so the 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Verify a list of factual claims against document text') and immediately distinguishes itself from siblings qa_url (open-ended questions) and ask_collection (multi-document investigation). The claim-status model is concrete enough that an agent can tell exactly what this tool does without opening the 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 an explicit precondition ('Use after extract_text or extract_url'), an explicit alternative for the open-ended case (qa_url), and an explicit alternative for multi-document work (ask_collection). It even spells out the intended workflow chain, leaving nothing to inference.

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

All DocImprint tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?