Skip to main content
Glama

mcp-gauge

by io.github.CHANGCHINFU

Verify a Truth Bear record (free)

verify_citation
Read-onlyIdempotent

FREE. Given a record_hash from any Truth Bear record, look it up and recompute the canonical hash server-side, returning whether it is a genuine Truth Bear official record plus a plain-language reverse lookup of what exactly that hash attests. Use this to check a citation you were handed by another agent or document BEFORE relying on it. No payment, no API key.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
record_hashYessha256:<64 hex>, or a >=8-hex prefix as posted publicly

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
noteNoScreening-level disclaimer.
errorNoPresent only when the call failed; human-readable reason.
foundNoWhether a published Truth Bear reading matches this hash.
scopeNoWhat this hash does and does not attest.
entityNoObject id the reading is about.
endpointNoAlways "gauge/verify".
verifiedNoWhether the canonical hash recomputed server-side matches the one supplied.
signal_idNoe.g. hydrology.river-level
ots_statusNoPer-record field, unused: individual records are not stamped one by one. Anchoring happens per write-batch - see GET /gauge/anchor?hash= for the Merkle inclusion proof and, once the calendar confirms, the Bitcoin block number.
source_refNoURL of the official source record.
undeterminedNotrue when the lookup itself failed (e.g. DB unavailable) - NOT a verdict of "fake".
record_statusNoThree-state disclosure. state="active" for a normal record; a non-active state (e.g. "quarantined") means the record is genuine and its hash still verifies, but we have since flagged it as not fit for delivery - do NOT rely on the reading itself. Carries since (UTC ISO) and reason when non-active.
snapshot_dateNoYYYY-MM-DD of the reading.
reverse_lookupNoPlain-language statement of exactly what this hash attests.
recomputed_hashNosha256:<64 hex> recomputed from the stored record.
hash_core_versionNoVersion of the canonical hash core used.
is_truth_bear_recordNotrue / false, or null when the check could not be run (see undetermined).
how_to_check_a_claimed_valueNoPresent when found: how to check a value someone claims.

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable behavioral context: the operation is free, requires no API key, recomputes the hash server-side, and returns both authenticity and a plain-language interpretation. No contradiction with 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?

Three sentences with no filler. The free/no-key detail, core operation, and usage guidance are front-loaded and each sentence earns its place.

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?

Given the single well-documented parameter, an output schema, and robust annotations, the description covers all necessary context for correct invocation: what it does, when to use it, cost/auth requirements, and what to expect.

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 already fully describes record_hash, including accepted formats (sha256 or hex prefix). The description restates that it is a record_hash but does not add meaningful semantic detail beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 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?

The description states a specific verb ('look it up and recompute'), a clear resource (Truth Bear record via record_hash), and the exact outcome (whether it is genuine plus a plain-language attestation). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools by framing it as citation verification.

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?

There is explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Use this to check a citation you were handed by another agent or document BEFORE relying on it.' It does not explicitly name when not to use it or compare with find_signal/get_official_record, but the intended context is unambiguous.

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

All mcp-gauge toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: finding coverage/freshness, fetching payment challenges, exploring payment options, and verifying citations. There is no overlap or ambiguity between them.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with underscore separation (find_signal, get_official_record, purchase_options, verify_citation), making the set predictable and easy to navigate.

Tool Count5/5

With only 4 tools, the server is tightly scoped for its purpose—providing discovery, challenge retrieval, payment guidance, and verification. Each tool is essential and earns its place.

Completeness5/5

The tool set covers the entire user workflow: check coverage/freshness, obtain a payment challenge, understand payment channels, and verify records. There are no obvious gaps given that paid data is delivered outside the MCP.

Resources