Audit every citation in a markdown/plain-text document: extracts claim+source pairs (markdown links, footnotes, DOIs, bare URLs), verifies each against the fetched source, and returns a report with a citation integrity score (0-100).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| document | Yes | Document text (markdown or plain text) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses the core behavior (extracts claim+source pairs, verifies each, returns a score) but lacks details on failure modes, network requirements, rate limits, or side effects. This is useful but not fully transparent.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, information-dense sentence. It front-loads the core purpose ('Audit every citation') and then efficiently lists what it extracts, how verification works, and what it returns. No wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a single-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the key aspects: input, extraction, verification, and output score. It is slightly incomplete in not describing the report format or edge-case behavior, but overall it provides enough context for basic use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% for the single 'document' parameter, so the schema already provides the meaning. The description repeats 'markdown/plain-text' but adds no additional semantic detail beyond the schema, hence baseline score.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function: 'Audit every citation in a markdown/plain-text document'. It specifies the resource (document), the action (audit), and the scope (every citation), and distinguishes from siblings by detailing extract+verify+report behavior.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage: when you have a markdown/plain-text document with citations and want a comprehensive audit. It provides a clear context but does not explicitly discuss when to use this tool over siblings like check_links or verify_claims, nor any exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: check_document audits the entire document, check_links focuses solely on link liveness, and verify_claims evaluates individual claim-source pairs with detailed verdicts. There is no meaningful overlap that would cause an agent to pick the wrong tool.
All tool names follow the verb_noun pattern (check_document, check_links, verify_claims), but the mix of 'check' and 'verify' as verbs is a minor inconsistency. The structure is predictable and readable overall.
With 3 tools, the server is well-scoped for its purpose. Each tool earns its place and covers a distinct aspect of citation checking without unnecessary bloat.
The core workflows are covered: whole-document auditing, link validation, and claim verification. Minor gaps exist, such as no standalone URL liveness check or a tool to parse citations independently, but these are workable with the current set.