Skip to main content
Glama

Yank

by info.yank
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Check a statement against its source

check_quote
Read-onlyIdempotent

Yank Check: a statement and the source it is supposed to come from, in; a verdict and a receipt, out. FOUND (the words are in the representation Yank inspected), CLOSE MATCH (substantially the same wording, with the difference shown), DISTILLED MATCH (a passage shares most of the statement's content words but not its literal words; shared words can say the opposite, so read the passage), NOT FOUND (Yank inspected an adequate representation and could not find support), or CAN'T ESTABLISH (Yank could not obtain or inspect enough evidence; the reason says why). With where (a moment for media, the publisher's page opened on the exact words for an article), speaker with the class of that claim (file-stated, representation-stated, not-established), the passage around it, which representation was read (captions, transcript, article text, filing, document) and how much of it (inspected: words, duration), and when. A NOT FOUND is a bounded claim scoped to the representation read, never a claim that the words were not said; a CLOSE MATCH lists the words that differ (difference.tokens), never a similarity number; every verdict carries one plain sentence (finding). No model is consulted: the verdict resolves against the representation itself. Sources Yank already holds check immediately; an article, a public PDF (located by page) or a captioned video is read for the check; audio that would need transcribing is not spent on here and returns CAN'T ESTABLISH with acquisition_required, so yank it first. None of the verdicts is a judgement on whether the statement is true.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
sourceYesThe public http(s) link the statement is supposed to come from.
statementYesThe words to check, as claimed. One claim at a time, up to 600 characters.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Adds rich context beyond annotations: defines all five verdicts, explains that no model is consulted, that NOT FOUND is a bounded claim about the representation, that CLOSE MATCH lists difference tokens, and that every verdict carries a finding. Annotations only cover read-only/idempotent safety, so the description does the heavy lifting on behavior.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

Front-loads the core input/output, but then delivers a dense, run-on block of verdict definitions and caveats without structural breaks (e.g., bullet lists). Each clause adds some value, but the wall of text is not optimally concise or scannable.

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 thoroughly explains return fields (where, speaker, passage, representation, inspected, when, finding, difference.tokens) and the meaning of each verdict. It also covers limitations (no truth judgement, bounded NOT FOUND) and the audio edge case, making it complete for this tool.

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%, so the schema already documents both parameters (statement and source). The description only restates them in passing and adds no format or constraint detail beyond what the schema provides, so 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 (check) and resource (statement against its source), and describes the output (verdict and receipt). Implicitly distinguishes from siblings by directing audio that needs transcription to 'yank it first' (get_yank) and by defining its scope as checking against already-held representations.

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 says when sources are checked immediately (ones Yank already holds, articles, public PDFs, captioned video) and when not (audio needing transcription returns CAN'T ESTABLISH with acquisition_required, so yank first). This clearly routes the agent to the alternative tool for unacquired media.

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

All Yank toolsInspect
Try in Browser
One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources