A
licenseA
qualityC
maintenanceEvidence-backed web research for AI agents. Real-time search with cited claims, confidence scores, and compare mode showing raw LLM hallucination vs evidence-backed answers.
5
20
Apache 2.0
Tru8 Evidence Research
Server Details
Source-traced evidence research for AI agents. We organise the evidence; you decide.
- Status
- Healthy
- Last Tested
- Transport
- Streamable HTTP
- URL
- Repository
- SamYatesSmith/Tru8
- GitHub Stars
- 0
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 4.4/5 across 3 of 3 tools scored.
Server CoherenceA
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool has a distinct purpose: tru8_check submits new evidence research, tru8_get_result retrieves a check with computed analytics, and tru8_get_result_raw retrieves raw data without analytics. The two retrieval tools are clearly differentiated by the presence of the _computed block, so an agent can choose based on whether post-processing is needed.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tools share the 'tru8_' prefix and follow a verb_noun pattern: check, get_result, get_result_raw. The naming is consistent and predictable, with the only variation being a clear semantic difference between the submit action and the two retrieval variants.
Tool Count5/5
With 3 tools, the server is minimal but well-scoped for its purpose. It covers the essential operations: submit a check and retrieve results in two useful formats. The count is within the ideal 3-15 range and each tool earns its place without redundancy.
Completeness4/5
The core workflow is complete: submit a claim, retrieve the result with analytics, or retrieve the raw data for custom processing. A minor gap is the lack of a 'list checks' or 'status' endpoint, but this is not a dead end for typical use cases, as the submit call returns a result directly and retrieval by ID is supported.
Available Tools
3 toolstru8_checkAInspect
Evidence research for a factual claim or article URL.
Submit a claim as text or paste an article URL. URLs are auto-detected
and trigger article mode: the pipeline extracts claims from the page
and auto-selects up to 5 for evidence research.
Tiers (in fallback order):
- lookup (~£0.02, instant) — cached prior analysis
- consensus (~£0.03, instant) — cross-user aggregate landscape (k≥3 checks)
- quick (~£0.07, ~15s) — web search + heuristic classification
- full (~£0.15, ~60-90s) — web + specialist APIs, LLM classification, coverage recovery
Charges based on tier actually executed, not tier requested.
Set max_tier to control maximum spend per call.
Output structure:
- claims[].claimMap.elements[] — verifiable sub-claims with state
(supported/disputed/unresolved)
- claims[].claimMap.elements[].evidenceRefs[] — evidence mapped to elements
with relationship (supports/challenges/context) and reasoning
- claims[].evidence[] — sources classified by tier (primary/reporting/
commentary) and type (data/official/news/analysis/opinion/academic)
- claims[].claimMap.orientation — mechanical summary from element states
- _meta — execution metadata: executedTier, chargedPence, limitations
Per-argument guidance lives on the parameters themselves (see the
Annotated/Field declarations above), which is where a client can actually
read it — a docstring "Args:" block never reaches the tool's inputSchema.
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| claim | Yes | A factual claim ("The Earth's average temperature rose 1.1°C since 1880") or an article URL (https://example.com/article). URLs are auto-detected and the pipeline extracts claims from the page content. | |
| compact | No | If true, strip the full evidence arrays and computed analytics from the response, leaving claims and claim maps. Smaller payload for agents that only need orientation. | |
| max_tier | No | Maximum tier to attempt — "lookup", "consensus", "quick" or "full" (default). A CEILING, not a floor: cached and consensus hits still return instantly at their own lower price, so the default costs ~£0.15 only for claims never researched before. Set "quick" to cap spend at ~£0.07, accepting web-search-only sourcing and heuristic classification (see _meta.limitations). | full |
| max_age_hours | No | Skip cache hits older than this many hours. Stale lookup hits are discarded and the pipeline re-runs at the next tier up to max_tier. 0 means never serve a cached result. |
Output Schema
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Tool Definition Quality
A4.4/5.0
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description is rich with behavioral details beyond the annotations: it discloses auto-detection of URLs, tier fallback order with costs and latency, that charges are based on tier actually executed, max_tier acts as a ceiling, and that cached/consensus hits return instantly at lower price. It also details the output structure and metadata including limitations. This far exceeds the annotation hints (readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, etc.) and contains no contradiction.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is long but well-structured with clear sections (tiers, output structure). Every content sentence adds value (costs, timing, behavior). The final paragraph about per-argument guidance is meta-commentary on schema documentation rather than tool behavior, adding minor noise, but it does not detract meaningfully.
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?
For a tool with this complexity (multiple tiers, cost implications, article mode, structured output), the description is highly complete. It explains what happens on submission, the fallback logic, cost control, output schema shape, and execution metadata. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to explain returns, and the description still covers the essential return fields, making it sufficient for an agent to invoke this tool correctly.
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% – every parameter is well-documented in the input schema. The description adds no further parameter-level detail; in fact, it explicitly defers to the parameter declarations. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema carries the heavy lifting and the description does not need to compensate.
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 opens with 'Evidence research for a factual claim or article URL' – a specific verb and resource. It clearly distinguishes from sibling get_result tools by explaining this tool submits a claim/URL and runs the research pipeline, while siblings likely fetch results.
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 gives clear context for when to use this tool: when you have a factual claim or article URL to research. It explains the tier fallback process and how to control spend via max_tier. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools (e.g., 'use tru8_get_result to retrieve results'), so exclusions are implicit rather than stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
tru8_get_resultARead-onlyIdempotentInspect
Retrieve a previously submitted check with pre-computed analytics.
Returns the full result including a _computed block with tier/type
distributions, corroboration groups, diagnostic values, timeline
analysis, element state summaries, and per-claim dispositions.
Use this over tru8_get_result_raw when you want structured analytics
ready for summarisation or comparison without post-processing.
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| check_id | Yes | The check UUID returned by tru8_check. Retrieval is free and limited to your own checks; a check still running returns its status rather than a result, so this is also the poll call. |
Output Schema
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Tool Definition Quality
A4.2/5.0
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds the _computed block contents and the differentiation from the raw variant, but does not mention that a still-running check returns status rather than a result (that nuance lives in the parameter schema). This is acceptable but not deeply transparent on its own.
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 each earn their place: the first defines the action, the second enumerates return contents, the third gives usage guidance. No filler, front-loaded, and appropriately sized.
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?
With a rich schema description, annotations, and an output schema present, the overall tool definition is quite complete. The description covers purpose, return contents, and alternative usage; only the polling behavior is left to the schema, which is acceptable. Missing error conditions or permission details, but those are not required.
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 has 100% coverage and the check_id description already explains that it's the UUID from tru8_check, mentions retrieval limits, and notes it serves as the poll call. The tool description adds no extra parameter semantics, 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?
The description opens with 'Retrieve a previously submitted check with pre-computed analytics', clearly stating the verb and resource. It distinguishes this tool from tru8_get_result_raw by noting it returns structured analytics, making it easy to select the right tool.
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 states 'Use this over tru8_get_result_raw when you want structured analytics ready for summarisation or comparison without post-processing', providing both a when-to-use condition and a named alternative.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
tru8_get_result_rawARead-onlyIdempotentInspect
Retrieve a previously submitted check without computed analytics.
Returns claims, elements, evidence, and claim maps only. No _computed
block. Smaller response payload. Use this when you will compute your
own aggregations or only need specific fields from the raw data.
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| check_id | Yes | The check UUID returned by tru8_check. Same retrieval as tru8_get_result, without the computed analytics block. |
Output Schema
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Tool Definition Quality
A4.5/5.0
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Beyond the readOnly/idempotent/destructive annotations, the description discloses valuable behavioral details: exactly which parts are returned (claims, elements, evidence, claim maps), what is excluded (no _computed block), and the consequence (smaller response payload). This gives the agent a clear expectation of the response content.
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 three sentences, each earning its place: the first states the core purpose, the second details return contents, and the third gives usage guidance. It is front-loaded with the key action and free of redundant text.
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?
For a simple one-parameter read-only tool, the description is comprehensive: it explains the action, return contents, and when to use it. The output schema is present, annotations cover safety, and the sibling names provide retrieval context. Nothing important is missing.
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 input schema has 100% coverage; the check_id parameter already has a clear description referencing tru8_check and tru8_get_result. The tool description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 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 starts with a specific verb+resource+scope: 'Retrieve a previously submitted check without computed analytics.' It clearly differentiates from the sibling tool tru8_get_result by explicitly stating the absence of the _computed block and smaller payload.
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 provides explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Use this when you will compute your own aggregations or only need specific fields from the raw data.' It does not explicitly name the alternative tool or state when not to use it, but the context and schema reference to tru8_get_result make the alternative clear.
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-qualityAmaintenanceMakes AI research agents accountable by giving every conclusion a traceable argument graph. Provides a persistent argument graph where claims require grounds and warrants for auditable, verifiable reasoning.2MIT
- AlicenseAqualityDmaintenanceUniversal Search-First Knowledge Acquisition Plugin for LLMs. Enables real-time web search and deep page browsing via MCP or CLI. Zero-cost, privacy-first, supports DuckDuckGo, Bing, Google, Brave, Wikipedia, Arxiv, YouTube, Reddit and more.22215MIT
- AlicenseAqualityAmaintenanceProvenance-first web access for AI agents, delivering clean content with verifiable source metadata and SEC EDGAR financial data.824MIT