Verify whether a supplied public source supports a specific factual claim before an agent relies on it.
Glama MCP Gateway
Connect through Glama MCP Gateway for full control over tool access and complete visibility into every call.
Full call logging
Every tool call is logged with complete inputs and outputs, so you can debug issues and audit what your agents are doing.
Tool access control
Enable or disable individual tools per connector, so you decide what your agents can and cannot do.
Managed credentials
Glama handles OAuth flows, token storage, and automatic rotation, so credentials never expire on your clients.
Usage analytics
See which tools your agents call, how often, and when, so you can understand usage patterns and catch anomalies.
Average 4.2/5 across 1 of 1 tools scored.
With only a single tool, there is no possibility of confusion or misselection. The tool's purpose is unambiguous and clearly distinct from any hypothetical alternatives.
The tool name 'verify_source_claim' perfectly follows a consistent verb_noun pattern, making its action and target immediately clear. No other names exist to create inconsistency.
The server provides only one tool, which is on the lower end of appropriateness. While the tool is not trivial and addresses a specific narrow function, the server might benefit from additional tools (e.g., batch verification or history) to feel more complete for a claim-proof domain.
For its stated purpose—verifying a single atomic claim against a single source—the tool fully covers the required functionality with clear outcome states. The explicit exclusion of general fact-checking indicates the scope is intentionally narrow, and there are no obvious gaps within that scope.
verify_source_claimAInspectVerify one atomic factual claim against one public source URL. Return supported, contradicted, or insufficient-evidence with source snippets, or explicit blocked/unreachable/unsupported states. Not a general fact checker.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | Public HTTP or HTTPS source page URL to inspect. | |
| claim | Yes | One atomic factual assertion to check against that source only. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behaviors: returns specific verdicts (supported, contradicted, insufficient-evidence) and handles blocked/unreachable/unsupported states, which informs the user about limitations and edge cases.
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?
The description is two sentences, both informative and free of fluff. It front-loads the primary purpose and immediately clarifies the scope limitation, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.
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 the tool's moderate complexity, the description covers the core behavior, possible outcomes, and scope constraints. It lacks details about the output format (no output schema) but the verdict list gives enough context for an agent to understand what to expect.
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?
The schema already fully describes both parameters (URL and claim) with constraints and descriptions. The tool description does not add extra semantic meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.
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?
The description clearly states the tool verifies a single atomic factual claim against a single public source URL, lists the possible outcomes, and explicitly notes it is not a general fact checker, which distinguishes it from broader fact-checking tools.
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?
The description specifies the scope (one claim vs one URL) and explicitly excludes general fact-checking, but does not mention when to use alternative tools (though no siblings are listed) or any conditions like URL accessibility.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Claim this connector by publishing a /.well-known/glama.json file on your server's domain with the following structure:
{
"$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/connector.json",
"maintainers": [{ "email": "your-email@example.com" }]
}The email address must match the email associated with your Glama account. Once published, Glama will automatically detect and verify the file within a few minutes.
Control your server's listing on Glama, including description and metadata
Access analytics and receive server usage reports
Get monitoring and health status updates for your server
Feature your server to boost visibility and reach more users
For users:
Full audit trail – every tool call is logged with inputs and outputs for compliance and debugging
Granular tool control – enable or disable individual tools per connector to limit what your AI agents can do
Centralized credential management – store and rotate API keys and OAuth tokens in one place
Change alerts – get notified when a connector changes its schema, adds or removes tools, or updates tool definitions, so nothing breaks silently
For server owners:
Proven adoption – public usage metrics on your listing show real-world traction and build trust with prospective users
Tool-level analytics – see which tools are being used most, helping you prioritize development and documentation
Direct user feedback – users can report issues and suggest improvements through the listing, giving you a channel you would not have otherwise
The connector status is unhealthy when Glama is unable to successfully connect to the server. This can happen for several reasons:
The server is experiencing an outage
The URL of the server is wrong
Credentials required to access the server are missing or invalid
If you are the owner of this MCP connector and would like to make modifications to the listing, including providing test credentials for accessing the server, please contact support@glama.ai.
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!
