Skip to main content
Glama

Check a statement against the claim ledger

check_claim
Read-onlyIdempotent

Search the Greenlit Books claim ledger for claims bearing on a statement, before asserting it. Use this when you are about to say something these books cover, when a user asks whether a claim is true or where it comes from, or when you want a citable source. Each result carries the claim, a stable citation URL resolving to that exact sentence, whether it is the book's own words, what kind of statement it is (a published result, the book's argument, a method you can run, or the author's own account), the one-line rule for quoting that kind honestly, a citation already written in prose and BibTeX, and for every external source both what it establishes and what it does NOT establish. Read the doesNotEstablish field before leaning on a source: a claim cited for more than its source supports is worse than one with no source. Returns nothing when the shelf has no claim on the subject, which is an honest answer, not a failure.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
bookNoRestrict to one book, by slug.
basisNoRestrict to one kind of statement. Use external when only a published result will do.
limitNoMaximum results, default 5.
statementYesWhat you want to check, in your own words. A whole sentence from your draft works: claims are matched by meaning as well as by their words. E.g. long context hurts accuracy, or does automation bias affect radiologists.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / statement / description
      Previous value: -"What you want to check, in your own words, e.g. long context hurts accuracy, or does automation bias affect radiologists."New value: +"What you want to check, in your own words. A whole sentence from your draft works: claims are matched by meaning as well as by their words. E.g. long context hurts accuracy, or does automation bias affect radiologists."
  2. Added

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context the annotations cannot: the empty-result case is 'an honest answer, not a failure,' and results include a doesNotEstablish field with a warning about over-citing sources.

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 purpose and usage, then result contents, then the doesNotEstablish caveat and empty-result semantics. It is long, but nearly every sentence carries distinct, non-redundant 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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by enumerating the return fields (claim, citation URL, provenance kind, quoting rule, prose/BibTeX citations, doesNotEstablish) and the empty-result case. Complete enough for an agent to call and interpret results correctly.

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%, including the enum guidance for basis and slug note for book, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds no parameter syntax or format detail beyond what the schema already provides; 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 (search) and resource (the Greenlit Books claim ledger) with a clear purpose (finding claims bearing on a statement before asserting it). Distinguishable from siblings like cite_source and get_concept without opening schemas.

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?

Explicitly enumerates three triggering situations: about to assert something the books cover, a user asking whether a claim is true or its origin, or wanting a citable source. This is concrete when-to-use guidance an agent can act on directly.

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.