Skip to main content
Glama

ZadenWorks

by io.github.ZadenGG

verify_claim

Check whether a claimed quote or fact actually appears on a URL — a cheap citation/hallucination checker. Returns verdict exact_match, close_match (with a confidence score and the closest matching passage), or not_found. Paid: $0.01 per call in USDC on Base via x402 — call once without x_payment to receive the payment challenge.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
urlYesPublic http/https URL to check the claim against
claimYesThe quote or fact to verify appears on the page (max 2000 chars)
selectorNoOptional CSS selector to scope the search to
x_paymentNoOptional X-PAYMENT header value from a completed x402 payment. Omit on first call to receive the payment challenge; complete the payment with your x402 wallet tooling, then retry with this set.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

The description clearly discloses the main output behavior (verdicts: exact_match, close_match, not_found) and mentions the payment challenge process. Since no annotations are provided, it carries this burden well, though it does not explicitly state that it is read-only or non-destructive.

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 compact and well-structured: a clear purpose statement, a summary of return values, and the payment note. No redundant or tangential wording.

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?

The description covers the essential operational details: the return verdict set, the payment challenge, and the URL/claim parameters. Since there is no output schema, the description could have elaborated slightly on the confidence score format, but it is otherwise sufficient for the tool's simple purpose.

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

Parameters5/5

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

All 4 parameters have descriptive schema entries, and the description adds important context for x_payment (the payment challenge flow). The 100% schema description coverage fully compensates for any missing detail in the prose.

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 the tool's purpose: 'Check whether a claimed quote or fact actually appears on a URL' with a specific verb, resource, and a helpful label ('cheap citation/hallucination checker'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like read_page and render_url.

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?

Provides some usage context by describing it as a cheap citation checker and explaining the x402 payment flow ('call once without x_payment to receive the payment challenge'). However, it does not explicitly mention when to prefer this over sibling tools such as read_page or compare_pages.

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

All ZadenWorks 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

A4.1/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose, from SEO audits to link checking, content comparison, accessibility scans, structured data validation, and claim verification. No two tools overlap in function.

Naming Consistency4/5

Names mostly follow a consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern (audit_seo, check_links, compare_pages). Minor deviations like rank_x402_services and list_rank_categories are slightly less uniform but still readable and predictable.

Tool Count5/5

14 tools cover a broad but focused range of web page analysis and auditing workflows without feeling bloated. The count is well within the ideal 3-15 range for a specialized service.

Completeness5/5

The tool surface is remarkably complete for the domain: covers SEO, sitemaps, links, content, rendering, accessibility, structured data, claims, and monitoring. No critical dead ends or obvious missing operations for typical use cases.

Resources