Skip to main content
Glama

Erik Bethke's Blog & Knowledge Graph

verify_quote

Read-only

Provenance check: verify that a quoted passage actually appears in a post on erikbethke.com. Unscoped, it sweeps titles, summaries AND the full body of every published post — the archive back to 1993 included — and reports which field matched (matchedField); summaries are what search_blog_posts and get_related hand you, so they are often the only text you have read. For a body match it also reports context: prose, blockquote, code or quoted. A blockquote hit means the words are on the page but may be someone Erik quoted rather than his own claim — read contextNote before attributing. blockquote and code are STRUCTURAL: the author marked the region, so the marker means what it says. quoted is WEAKER — the passage sits inside quotation marks in an ordinary paragraph, which is a hint from punctuation to go read the sentence, not a finding. A structural marker always outranks punctuation. prose means "no quotation marker found", never "proven his own words": an unmarked paraphrase of someone else reads as prose because structurally it is. Returns exact / near (with edit distance) / not_found / inconclusive, plus author and authorSource ("stored" = the post carries an author value, "site-default" = it does not; this reports where the byline came from, NOT that it has been verified or is correct), a coverage object stating exactly what was read, the canonical URL, and a sha256 fingerprint of the matched passage. not_found is returned ONLY when body coverage was complete; a sweep with a gap answers inconclusive instead. Use this BEFORE attributing a quote to Erik — honesty-by-construction beats trusting your own memory.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idNoPost ID or slug to check against. Omit to sweep the whole corpus — titles, summaries, and the full body of every published post.
quoteYesThe quoted passage to verify (min ~12 chars)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / id / description
      Previous value: -"Post ID or slug to check against. Omit to sweep titles + summaries across the whole corpus and the bodies of the 50 most recent posts."New value: +"Post ID or slug to check against. Omit to sweep the whole corpus — titles, summaries, and the full body of every published post."
  2. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / id / description
      Previous value: -"Post ID or slug to check against. Omit to search the most recent 50 posts."New value: +"Post ID or slug to check against. Omit to sweep titles + summaries across the whole corpus and the bodies of the 50 most recent posts."
  3. First observed

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations only state readOnlyHint:true, but the description goes far beyond: it details the full corpus sweep, the matchedField report, context types (prose, blockquote, code, quoted) with their epistemic weight, the authorSource caveat (not a verification), the coverage object, the fingerprint, and the exact condition for not_found. No contradiction with 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?

The description is lengthy but every sentence earns its place, covering nuanced behavioral semantics that an agent must understand to avoid misattribution. It is structured logically (what it does, how to interpret results, what not_found means, and when to use). It could be trimmed slightly but is not padded.

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?

This is a complex tool with multiple output nuances (matchedField, context types, authorSource, coverage, fingerprint, and conditional not_found). The description covers all of these in detail, explains the semantics of structural vs. punctuation markers, and even gives a practical usage guideline. No output schema exists, so the description fully bears the burden of explaining return values and edge cases. It is exceptionally complete.

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 coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already documented. The description restates the id sweep behavior and quote minimum length, but adds little new parameter-specific semantics beyond the schema. It does add context about what the quote parameter is typically sourced from (search/blog tools), which is marginal value. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 opening line 'Provenance check: verify that a quoted passage actually appears in a post on erikbethke.com' is a specific verb-resource statement. It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like search_blog_posts (which find text) and get_related (which return related content), and the description even references those tools to clarify what this one is not.

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?

The description explicitly directs 'Use this BEFORE attributing a quote to Erik' and explains the distinction between not_found versus inconclusive, giving an unambiguous rule for interpretation. It also differentiates when the corpus sweep is needed (when id is omitted) and clarifies that summaries from search_blog_posts/get_related are frequently the only text an agent has, implying the verification context.

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