SiteCheck Agent Intel & Dev

Checks up to 5 references against public registries: DOI

agent_intel_citation_verifier

Read-only

Checks up to 5 references against public registries: DOI through Crossref, arXiv ids through the arXiv API, ISBN-10/13 through Open Library (checksum first). Returns title, year, venue and a BibTeX entry plus an APA-style string for each verified one; unknown ones come back as not_found. Authors are given for DOI and arXiv only. Price: $0.002 in USDC per successful call, paid with x402 (Base, Solana or Arc); failed calls are not charged.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "references": "<references>"
    },
    "name": "agent_intel_citation_verifier"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`references`	Yes	1 to 5 DOIs, arXiv ids (arXiv:1706.03762) or ISBNs

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`source`	No
`results`	No
`checkedAt`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedOct 23, 2026

TDQS

A4.6/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Goes well past readOnlyHint/openWorldHint: discloses per-registry dispatch, an ISBN checksum pre-check, the not_found fallback for unresolved items, that authors are populated only for DOI and arXiv, and the exact billing model ($0.002 USDC per successful call via x402 on Base/Solana/Arc, failures free). The payment and partial-result semantics are exactly the kind of context an agent cannot infer from annotations.

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?

Front-loaded with the capability and registry mapping, then returns, then price — a sensible information order. It is dense, semicolon-chained and the return-format clause is partly redundant with the output schema, but no sentence is filler.

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 single-parameter, open-world verification tool with an existing output schema, everything an agent needs before calling is present: accepted formats, batch cap, per-registry sources, failure representation, and cost. No material gap remains.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 100% and the single parameter already documents the 1–5 limit and the 'arXiv:1706.03762' format, so the description need not do heavy lifting. It reinforces the cardinality cap and identifier taxonomy, adding modest but non-zero meaning over the schema.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Checks up to 5 references'), then enumerates exactly which identifier classes are served and via which upstream registry (DOI→Crossref, arXiv→arXiv API, ISBN→Open Library). An agent can distinguish it from siblings like agent_intel_hallucination_claim_checker or agent_intel_fact_brief_synthesizer 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.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The scope is unambiguous: 1–5 identifiers, and only DOI/arXiv/ISBN are accepted, which implicitly tells the agent when this tool is not applicable. It does not, however, name a sibling alternative or state an explicit exclusion (e.g., what to do for a 6th reference or for a URL/PMID), so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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

All SiteCheck Agent Intel & Dev tools Inspect

Try in Browser

Claude Code, inside the Godot 4 editorFlockbay puts an AI agent in the real Godot 4 editor: it writes GDScript, runs your game and fixes what breaks. Free, or bring your own Claude Code or Codex.flockbay.comAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?