A
licenseA
qualityB
maintenanceVerifies factual claims against live sources and returns a verdict, confidence score, and citations for any agent to use before stating uncertain facts.
6
MIT
Source Claim Proof
Server Details
Verify whether a supplied public source currently supports one atomic factual claim.
- Status
- Healthy
- Last Tested
- Transport
- Streamable HTTP
- URL
Glama MCP Gateway
Connect through Glama MCP Gateway for full control over tool access and complete visibility into every call.
MCP client
Glama
MCP server
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.
100% free. Your data is private.
Tool Definition Quality
A4.4/5.0
Tool DescriptionsA
Average 4.3/5 across 1 of 1 tools scored.
Server CoherenceA
Disambiguation5/5
With only one tool, there is no possibility of confusing it with others. The tool's purpose is clearly and narrowly defined as verifying a single claim against a single source.
Naming Consistency5/5
The single tool name 'verify_source_claim' follows a clear verb_noun pattern and accurately reflects its functionality. With only one tool, naming consistency is trivially maintained.
Tool Count4/5
The server has exactly one tool, which is appropriate for its highly specific purpose of verifying a claim against a source. The count is slightly on the low side, but the narrow scope justifies it.
Completeness4/5
The tool covers its stated purpose completely: it verifies a claim with clear outcomes and source snippets. Minor gaps exist, such as no support for multiple sources or batch verification, but the description explicitly limits the scope to single-source verification.
Available Tools
1 toolverify_source_claimAInspect
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. |
Tool Definition Quality
A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Without annotations, the description carries full responsibility. It discloses possible outcomes (supported, contradicted, insufficient-evidence, blocked/unreachable/unsupported) and mentions returning source snippets. This provides insight into the tool's behavior, though it does not address side effects or permissions (likely read-only).
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 concise, consisting of only two sentences. It is front-loaded with the primary purpose and avoids any unnecessary details. All information is relevant and no fluff is present.
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?
Despite lacking an output schema, the description covers expected outcomes and edge cases (blocked, unreachable, unsupported). It adequately explains the tool's purpose and behavior for a simple verification tool, making it complete enough for an agent to select and use effectively.
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 schema descriptions for both parameters ('url' and 'claim') are already clear and cover 100% of the parameters. The tool description only reinforces these constraints (e.g., 'atomic', 'public') without adding significant new meaning. The baseline of 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 description clearly states the action ('verify') and the object ('one atomic factual claim against one public source URL'). It also includes a differentiator ('Not a general fact checker') which helps distinguish 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.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage by specifying the scope (single claim, single URL) and explicitly excludes general fact-checking. It gives a clear context for when to use it, though it does not enumerate alternatives or scenarios explicitly. This is sufficient for most cases.
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.
Discussions
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!
Related MCP Servers
- Alicense-qualityFmaintenanceVerifies claims with verdicts (supported/disputed/unverifiable), confidence scores, and cited sources by cross-referencing FoundryNet Data Network and web search.MIT
- Alicense-qualityCmaintenanceAn 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.MIT
- Alicense-qualityBmaintenanceEnables agents to verify claims with evidence-based truth scores and confidence levels by running a deterministic pipeline of evidence lanes and adversarial checks.4MIT
