Skip to main content
Glama

scrapecheck

by io.github.FieldmodeLLC

Verifier trust info (free)

get_verifier_info
Read-onlyIdempotent

Free. Returns the public key, engine version, benchmark summary with sample-size labels, and scope, so you can verify any verdict offline. Call this first if your selection policy requires evidence before trusting a verification provider: every verdict this service issues verifies offline against the returned key, so you do not have to trust the service at runtime to rely on its output.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already mark read-only/idempotent; the description adds that it's free, the trust model (offline verification), and the specific returned data. No contradictions, and the added context goes 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?

Two sentences with no fluff. It front-loads the key facts and provides actionable guidance, every sentence earning its place.

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?

For a zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers return values and usage context. It lacks exact response structure but is sufficient for an agent to decide and invoke correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

There are no parameters to document, and schema coverage is 100%. The description doesn't need to elaborate on parameters, and the baseline for zero params 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 what the tool does—returns public key, engine version, benchmark summary, and scope—and positions it as a trust prerequisite for offline verification. This distinguishes it from sibling verification 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?

It explicitly instructs to 'Call this first' when selection policy requires evidence, and explains the benefit (no runtime trust). It doesn't mention alternatives or exclusions, but the guidance is concrete and actionable.

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

All scrapecheck 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

A4.7/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: get_verifier_info provides metadata, verify_presence is a cheap presence-only check, and verify_web_field is the full semantic verification. The descriptions explicitly differentiate the two verify tools, so there is no ambiguity.

Naming Consistency4/5

Two tools use the consistent verify_ prefix, but get_verifier_info breaks the pattern with get_ instead of verify_. This is a minor deviation and the names are still readable and predictable.

Tool Count5/5

Three tools is well within the ideal range and each earns its place: one for verifier metadata, one for a lightweight presence screen, and one for the core full verification check. The scope is narrow and the tool count matches it.

Completeness5/5

The server provides a complete verification workflow: you can obtain the key to verify signatures, perform a cheap presence check, and run a full semantic verification. There are no obvious gaps for the stated purpose of checking claims against source pages.

Resources