Source Claim Proof

by dev.workers.mattskowronis.source-claim-proof

Server Details

Verify whether a supplied public source currently supports one atomic factual claim.

If you are the author of this connector, you can claim ownership with GitHub, an HTTP challenge, or a DNS record. Claimed connector authors can inspect health checks, view analytics, and manage their listing.

Status: Healthy
Last Tested: 2026-09-12 00:50
Transport: Streamable HTTP
URL

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Scored 2026-08-19 15:26 across 1 tool

Disambiguation5/5

With only one tool, there is no risk of confusing it with others. The tool's purpose is explicitly limited to verifying a single claim against a single source, making it unambiguous.

Naming Consistency5/5

The single tool follows a clear verb_noun pattern (verify_source_claim) in snake_case, which is consistent and self-descriptive.

Tool Count5/5

The server is highly specialized for a single atomic operation, and one tool is exactly appropriate for this narrow scope.

Completeness5/5

The tool covers the full range of outcomes (supported, contradicted, insufficient-evidence, blocked, unreachable) for its stated purpose, leaving no gaps in the verification workflow.

Available Tools

1 tool

verify_source_claimVerify Source ClaimA

Read-onlyIdempotent

Inspect

Verify 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.

ParametersJSON Schema

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.

Output Schema

ParametersJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`claim`	Yes	The claim that was checked.
`verdict`	Yes	supported, contradicted, or insufficient_evidence.
`evidence`	Yes	Compact source snippets used for the verdict.
`final_url`	Yes	Final URL after redirects.
`source_url`	Yes	Requested source URL.
`content_hash`	Yes	Hash of retrieved source content.
`retrieved_at`	Yes	UTC timestamp of the check.
`source_status`	Yes	verified, blocked, unreachable, unsupported, or insufficient_evidence.
`service_version`	Yes	Source Claim Proof service version.
`retrieval_method`	Yes	How the source page was fetched.
`reasoning_summary`	Yes	Short machine-readable reason for the verdict.

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and idempotentHint=true. The description adds behavioral context by specifying possible return states ('supported, contradicted, or insufficient-evidence') and handling of blocked/unreachable sources, which is valuable beyond the annotations.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is two sentences long, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and every phrase adds value. It is concise without omitting critical behavioral states or scope limitations.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the simple two-parameter schema, the presence of an output schema, and strong annotations, the description covers the essential behavior including return states and non-general-fact-checker scope. It could have added a bit more detail on expected source snippet formatting, but that is not necessary given the output schema.

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?

The input schema already provides complete descriptions for both parameters (100% schema coverage). The description reinforces the semantics with 'atomic factual claim' and 'public source URL' but does not add new information beyond the schema.

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 description uses specific verb 'Verify' with a clear resource: 'one atomic factual claim against one public source URL.' It explicitly distinguishes itself from general fact checking with 'Not a general fact checker,' which clarifies its unique scope.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description clearly states the intended use case (verifying a single claim against a single URL) and provides an explicit exclusion ('Not a general fact checker'). However, it does not name any alternative tools, though none are present in sibling tools.

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

Tool Schema Changelog

Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

1 tool updateAug 19, 2026

Changedverify_source_claim1 field changed

changedOutput schema / (root)

Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "additionalProperties": false,
+  "properties": {
+    "claim": {
+      "description": "The claim that was checked.",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "content_hash": {
+      "description": "Hash of retrieved source content.",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "evidence": {
+      "description": "Compact source snippets used for the verdict.",
+      "items": {
+        "additionalProperties": false,
+        "properties": {
+          "evidence_type": {
+            "description": "Where the snippet came from on the source page.",
+            "enum": [
+              "visible_text",
+              "heading",
+              "json_ld",
+              "meta",
+              "status"
+            ],
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "location": {
+            "description": "Page location of the snippet, or null if unknown.",
+            "type": [
+              "string",
+              "null"
+            ]
+          },
+          "polarity": {
+            "description": "Whether the snippet supports, contradicts, or is neutral.",
+            "enum": [
+              "supports",
+              "contradicts",
+              "neutral"
+            ],
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "text": {
+            "description": "Source snippet that supports or contradicts the claim.",
+            "maxLength": 240,
+            "type": "string"
+          }
+        },
+        "required": [
+          "text",
+          "location",
+          "evidence_type",
+          "polarity"
+        ],
+        "type": "object"
+      },
+      "maxItems": 3,
+      "type": "array"
+    },
+    "final_url": {
+      "description": "Final URL after redirects.",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "reasoning_summary": {
+      "description": "Short machine-readable reason for the verdict.",
+      "maxLength": 400,
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "retrieval_method": {
+      "description": "How the source page was fetched.",
+      "enum": [
+        "direct_http",
+        "browser_run",
+        "official_api",
+        "unsupported"
+      ],
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "retrieved_at": {
+      "description": "UTC timestamp of the check.",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "service_version": {
+      "description": "Source Claim Proof service version.",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "source_status": {
+      "description": "verified, blocked, unreachable, unsupported, or insufficient_evidence.",
+      "enum": [
+        "verified",
+        "blocked",
+        "unreachable",
+        "unsupported",
+        "insufficient_evidence"
+      ],
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "source_url": {
+      "description": "Requested source URL.",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "verdict": {
+      "description": "supported, contradicted, or insufficient_evidence.",
+      "enum": [
+        "supported",
+        "contradicted",
+        "insufficient_evidence"
+      ],
+      "type": "string"
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "verdict",
+    "claim",
+    "source_url",
+    "final_url",
+    "source_status",
+    "evidence",
+    "reasoning_summary",
+    "retrieval_method",
+    "retrieved_at",
+    "content_hash",
+    "service_version"
+  ],
+  "type": "object"
+}

1 tool updateAug 19, 2026
- First observedverify_source_claim

Related MCP Connectors

Fact Verification MCP A
io.github.FoundryNet
Verify claims with verdict, confidence & cited sources; batch verify, source checks, daily brief.
Search Research & Data
2
Provider Trust — Verify a Source or Provider A
com.scriptmasterlabs
Verify a source or provider before an AI agent trusts it. Evidence only; unknown stays unknown.
Security Research & Data
61
consistency-gate A
dk.humanified
Check claims against a fact-store: consistent, contradicts, or unverifiable — with a receipt.
RAG Systems Knowledge & Memory
31
Lenz Fact-CheckOAuth
io.lenz
Fact-check claims against independent sources — fast verdict or deep multi-step investigation.
Search Open Data Research & Data
2

Related MCP Servers

Groundcheck
AI & Machine Learning RAG Systems Search
beepboop2025
A
license
A
quality
B
maintenance
Verifies factual claims against live sources and returns a verdict, confidence score, and citations for any agent to use before stating uncertain facts.
Updated 2 days ago (2026-09-09 21:12 UTC)
6
MIT
Fact Check MCP
Research & Data Search
FoundryNet
A
license
Not graded
quality
F
maintenance
Verifies claims with verdicts (supported/disputed/unverifiable), confidence scores, and cited sources by cross-referencing FoundryNet Data Network and web search.
Updated a month ago (2026-08-11 06:21 UTC)
MIT
mcp-citation-checker
RAG Systems Search
ethanchand
A
license
Not graded
quality
C
maintenance
An MCP server that verifies whether a claim is actually supported by the source text at a given citation — independent of what the calling LLM asserts.
Updated 2 months ago (2026-07-25 23:57 UTC)
MIT
Recommend Agentic Trust Layerofficial
Autonomous Agents AI & Machine Learning Search
recommend-dev
A
license
Not graded
quality
B
maintenance
Enables agents to verify claims with evidence-based truth scores and confidence levels by running a deterministic pipeline of evidence lanes and adversarial checks.
Updated 11 days ago (2026-08-31 13:01 UTC)
24
MIT