Claim check for agents: supported, refuted or unverifiable with sources. Canada Site Ops.
Scored across 1 tool
With a single tool there is no possibility of tool-to-tool confusion; the purpose (verify a factual claim and return a verdict with sources) is unambiguous. An agent can never misselect between tools here.
verify_claim follows a clear verb_noun snake_case convention that matches the domain (verification) and reads naturally. No competing conventions exist to clash with it.
One tool is thin, but the stated scope—claim verification—is narrow enough that a single entry point is defensible rather than absurd. It still leaves no room for parallel operations (batch checks, source retrieval) that a real workflow would likely want.
The tool returns verdict, confidence, and quoted sources in one call, which covers the core loop. However, there is no way to batch multiple claims, fetch full page context behind the snippets, or retrieve prior verdicts, creating dead ends for anything beyond a single one-shot check.
Check a factual claim against public pages via GroundLock. Returns verdict (supported|refuted|unverifiable), confidence 0-1, and sources with quoted snippets. Not a guarantee.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| claim | Yes | Factual claim to check (1-2000 chars) | |
| depth | No | Work budget: quick 1 page, standard up to 5, deep up to 10. Default quick. | |
| api_key | No | GroundLock API key if not sent as Authorization Bearer. Free at https://sage-cedar-nova-otter.grok.me/signup | |
| context | No | Optional context (up to 4000 chars) | |
| sources | No | Up to 8 public URLs to read first |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations supplied, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the return shape (verdict, confidence, sources with snippets) and a reliability caveat, but it does not explain authentication requirements, rate limits, latency, or failure 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?
The description is three compact sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by the return values and a caveat. Every sentence contributes useful information with no filler.
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 five-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description adequately explains the operation, return values, and reliability limits. However, it omits operational details such as authentication expectations and error or rate-limit behavior that an agent might need when invoking the tool.
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%, so all five parameters are already documented in the input schema. The description adds no further meaning about claim, depth, api_key, context, or sources, making the baseline 3 appropriate.
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 states a specific verb and resource: checking a factual claim against public pages via GroundLock. It also names the returned verdicts, so an agent can immediately understand the tool's function without opening the schema.
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 for factual claims and limits scope to public pages, but it gives no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. The caveat 'Not a guarantee' is a limitation, not a routing rule, and there are no sibling tools to compare against.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
verify_claimPaid agent trust checks, receipt verification, research, data work, and monitoring.
Paid claim verification with cited web evidence, source provenance, snapshots, and hashes.
Media workflows, research and code for agents. Search sources, compare evidence and collaborate.
Agents pay for work and prove what happened.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.