Citation Check
Server Details
Does a cited URL exist, and does the source name what your claim names? Two answers.
- Status
- Healthy
- Last Tested
- Transport
- Streamable HTTP
- URL
Available Tools
2 toolscheck_citationCheck whether a citation holds upARead-onlyInspect
Fetch a URL and report whether it exists, and whether the source names the same entity as the claim you attach to it. These are two different questions and conflating them is the failure this exists to catch: a URL can return 200 and describe a different gene entirely. No account needed, nothing is stored about you.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | The citation to check. http(s) only; private and loopback addresses are refused. | |
| claim | No | Optional. The text that cites it — the sentence or finding this URL is meant to support. Without it you only learn whether the URL exists, which is the weaker half. |
TDQS
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and destructiveHint, but the description adds substantial behavioral context: 'No account needed, nothing is stored about you' covers privacy/auth, while 'a URL can return 200 and describe a different gene entirely' explicitly discloses a subtle failure mode. This goes well beyond the annotations and helps the agent anticipate the tool's behavior.
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?
Three concise, front-loaded sentences: the first states the core function, the second explains the dual-question warning, and the third covers privacy. Every sentence carries useful information without redundancy or fluff.
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 simple two-parameter tool, the description covers purpose, the two checks, a key failure mode, and privacy. No output schema exists, but the description implies the output (existence + entity match), and the sibling tool 'verdict_meanings' likely handles return interpretations. Slight gap: it does not specify return format or error behavior, but this is minor given the tool's simplicity.
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%, but the tool description adds meaningful context by explaining that the 'claim' is the text the URL is meant to support and that without it, only the weaker existence check is possible. This reinforces the parameter's purpose beyond the schema's description.
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 action: 'Fetch a URL and report whether it exists, and whether the source names the same entity as the claim you attach to it.' It specifies the resource (URL) and the two distinct checks, which effectively distinguishes it from any sibling tool by explaining the core conflation failure it prevents.
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?
Usage context is implied: this tool is for checking citations. It explains why the claim parameter is needed and the failure mode of relying only on HTTP status, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like 'verdict_meanings' or any exclusions. Thus it provides clear context but lacks explicit guidance on alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
verdict_meaningsWhat the verdicts mean, and what they do notARead-onlyInspect
The exact semantics of every status and relevance value, including what this checker cannot determine. Read once before trusting a verdict.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
TDQS
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds a limitation disclosure ('including what this checker cannot determine') beyond the annotations, which already indicate read-only and non-destructive behavior. This provides useful context and does not contradict 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.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences long, front-loaded with the core promise, and includes both scope and usage advice. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy.
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 simple reference tool with no parameters or output schema, the description is complete: it states what the tool provides, its limitations, and when to use it. No additional context is needed.
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?
This tool has zero parameters, so the schema is trivially fully covered. The description adds meaning by clarifying the tool's informational purpose, which is the baseline expectation for a no-parameter tool.
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: it provides 'the exact semantics of every status and relevance value,' including its limitations. This distinguishes it from the sibling tool check_citation by focusing on meaning rather than the checking process itself.
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 gives explicit usage guidance: 'Read once before trusting a verdict.' This indicates when to use the tool, though it does not mention alternatives or exclusion scenarios. The context is clear and sufficient for a reference tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Frequently Asked Questions
Claiming proves that you control a remote MCP connector. It does not move, proxy, or interrupt the server.
Open the connector listing, choose Claim ownership, and sign in to Glama.
Complete one verification method:
GitHub identity — fastest for official registry listings. For a namespace such as
io.github.alice/server, link the matching GitHub user or an account that owns the GitHub organization, then choose Claim with GitHub.HTTP challenge — works when you can deploy a public file. Generate a token, publish the exact JSON Glama shows at
/.well-known/glama.jsonon the same origin as the connector, then choose Check HTTP challenge.DNS challenge — works when you control DNS but cannot change the server. Generate a token, create the exact TXT record Glama shows, wait for it to propagate, then choose Check DNS challenge.
After verification, Glama sends a confirmation email and gives you access to listing details, thumbnails, health checks, and analytics. Keep the HTTP file or DNS record in place: Glama periodically checks it and ownership remains verified while the token is discoverable.
The HTTP ownership file has this structure:
{
"$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/connector.json",
"claim": "glama_claim_..."
}Claim tokens are opaque, stable, and bound to the signed-in Glama account. They contain no email address or other personal information. If Glama can no longer discover a verified HTTP or DNS token, it starts a seven-day grace period before removing claim-based access. Restore the same token during that period to keep ownership verified. Never publish an email address, Glama session token, GitHub token, or connector credential as ownership proof.
If verification fails, confirm that you copied the current token exactly. The HTTP file must be public, return valid JSON with a successful HTTP response, and stay on the connector's origin. DNS changes may need more time to propagate. A claim cannot transfer to a different origin or hostname: if the connector target changes, Glama starts the grace period and the new target must be claimed separately after the previous claim is released.
For a connector linked to the official MCP Registry, registry updates continue to replace its name, description, and URL by default. After claiming, open Manage connector and enable Use Glama listing details as the source of truth if edits made on Glama should be preserved. Categories and thumbnails are always managed on Glama; registry linkage and technical connection settings continue to sync.
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
To improve your MCP server's ranking:
Claim ownership of the server listing
Complete the server profile with an accurate description and thumbnail
Provide a test profile so Glama can connect to and evaluate the server
Keep tool definitions clear and complete to earn a high Tool Definition Quality Score (TDQS)
Route real usage through the Glama Gateway; more recorded successful server uses also improve the ranking
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 Connectors
Verify whether a supplied public source currently supports one atomic factual claim.
Where a link really goes, what the server says about itself, and what pages a site publishes.
Fact-check claims against live web sources: verdict, consensus, cited sources, PII redaction.
Verified reference data; each record carries its source URL and quote. verify_quote checks claims.
Related MCP Servers
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityFmaintenanceVerifies claims with verdicts (supported/disputed/unverifiable), confidence scores, and cited sources by cross-referencing FoundryNet Data Network and web search.MIT
- AlicenseAqualityBmaintenanceEnables agents to verify whether citations exist and match canonical records, and whether URLs resolve and contain expected content, with evidence-backed confirmed, contradicted, or unknown verdicts.2MIT
- FlicenseNot gradedqualityNot gradedmaintenanceURL reality check for AI agents — returns HTTP status, SHA-256 content hash, classification, readability score, title, and wayback-machine fallback when dead, cached 10 minutes at $0.001 per call.
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityDmaintenanceReal-time fact-checking agent. Verifies claims and URLs against live web sources. Returns CURRENT, OUTDATED, DISPUTED, or UNVERIFIABLE verdicts with confidence scores and what changed. x402 payments on Base.74MIT
Glama MCP Gateway
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
TDQS
The two tools have clearly distinct roles: check_citation performs the actual verification, while verdict_meanings explains the interpretation of results. There is no overlap or ambiguity in their purposes.
Both names use snake_case, which is consistent, but check_citation follows a verb_noun pattern while verdict_meanings is a noun phrase, creating a slight semantic inconsistency. However, with only two tools, the names are still predictable and descriptive.
With only two tools, the server feels minimal and is borderline according to the calibration. The narrow focus on citation checking justifies the small count, but it is still on the thin side for a tool set.
The core workflow of checking a citation is fully covered by check_citation, and verdict_meanings fills the need for understanding statuses and relevance values. There are no obvious gaps for the server's stated purpose, though it is intentionally minimal.