HallucC — Hallucination & Safety Guardian

Verify Text

verify_text

Read-only

逐声明幻觉核验。输入文本 → 提取声明 → 逐声明验证（supported/refuted/unverified）+ 来源引用。返回红/黄/绿汇总、每条声明的状态/置信度/理由/来源、citations、quota。耗 detect 额度（与 Web 端同源）。

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`text`	Yes	待核验的文本
`model`	No	被测模型名（选填，分享卡片展示用）
`speed`	No	速度模式：fast\|standard\|deep，默认 standard
`domain`	No	领域模式：general\|medical\|legal\|finance\|education\|government
`strict`	No	严格模式（自我一致性），不传走全局默认

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`input`	No
`quota`	No
`speed`	No
`claims`	No
`domain`	No
`strict`	No
`summary`	No
`citations`	No
`elapsed_ms`	No
`math_issues`	No
`detection_id`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed2 schema fields changedOct 19, 2026

addedOutput schema / properties / summary / anyOf

Added value: +[
+  {
+    "additionalProperties": {},
+    "properties": {
+      "green": {
+        "anyOf": [
+          {
+            "maximum": 9007199254740991,
+            "minimum": -9007199254740991,
+            "type": "integer"
+          },
+          {
+            "type": "null"
+          }
+        ]
+      },
+      "hallucination_risk": {
+        "type": [
+          "number",
+          "null"
+        ]
+      },
+      "red": {
+        "anyOf": [
+          {
+            "maximum": 9007199254740991,
+            "minimum": -9007199254740991,
+            "type": "integer"
+          },
+          {
+            "type": "null"
+          }
+        ]
+      },
+      "total": {
+        "anyOf": [
+          {
+            "maximum": 9007199254740991,
+            "minimum": -9007199254740991,
+            "type": "integer"
+          },
+          {
+            "type": "null"
+          }
+        ]
+      },
+      "yellow": {
+        "anyOf": [
+          {
+            "maximum": 9007199254740991,
+            "minimum": -9007199254740991,
+            "type": "integer"
+          },
+          {
+            "type": "null"
+          }
+        ]
+      }
+    },
+    "type": "object"
+  },
+  {
+    "type": "null"
+  }
+]

removedOutput schema / properties / summary / type
```
Removed value: -[
-  "string",
-  "null"
-]
```

Changed1 schema field changedOct 19, 2026

changedOutput schema / (root)

Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "$schema": "http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#",
+  "additionalProperties": {},
+  "properties": {
+    "citations": {
+      "anyOf": [
+        {
+          "items": {},
+          "type": "array"
+        },
+        {
+          "type": "null"
+        }
+      ]
+    },
+    "claims": {
+      "anyOf": [
+        {
+          "items": {},
+          "type": "array"
+        },
+        {
+          "type": "null"
+        }
+      ]
+    },
+    "detection_id": {
+      "anyOf": [
+        {
+          "maximum": 9007199254740991,
+          "minimum": -9007199254740991,
+          "type": "integer"
+        },
+        {
+          "type": "null"
+        }
+      ]
+    },
+    "domain": {
+      "type": [
+        "string",
+        "null"
+      ]
+    },
+    "elapsed_ms": {
+      "type": [
+        "number",
+        "null"
+      ]
+    },
+    "input": {
+      "type": [
+        "string",
+        "null"
+      ]
+    },
+    "math_issues": {
+      "anyOf": [
+        {
+          "items": {},
+          "type": "array"
+        },
+        {
+          "type": "null"
+        }
+      ]
+    },
+    "quota": {
+      "anyOf": [
+        {
+          "additionalProperties": {},
+          "propertyNames": {
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "type": "object"
+        },
+        {
+          "type": "null"
+        }
+      ]
+    },
+    "speed": {
+      "type": [
+        "string",
+        "null"
+      ]
+    },
+    "strict": {
+      "type": [
+        "boolean",
+        "null"
+      ]
+    },
+    "summary": {
+      "type": [
+        "string",
+        "null"
+      ]
+    }
+  },
+  "type": "object"
+}

First observedOct 8, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true). The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond that: it consumes detect quota, shares a quota source with the Web interface, and returns red/yellow/green summaries with per-claim status, confidence, reasons, sources, and citations. It does not explain why the operation is non-idempotent, so it stops short of a 5.

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 a compact, front-loaded paragraph that moves purposefully from purpose to process to outputs to cost. No sentence is wasted, and the arrow notation makes the pipeline easy to scan.

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?

Given the rich annotations and the presence of an output schema, the description is nearly complete: it covers purpose, process, output summary, and quota cost. The only notable gap is any guidance on choosing this tool over its siblings, which keeps it from a 5.

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%, so the schema already documents all five parameters and their enums. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning (e.g., it never explains model, speed, domain, or strict), so the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb and resource: per-claim hallucination verification of input text, including the extraction and verification pipeline. It does not mention or differentiate from siblings (check_safety, verify_agent, etc.), so it cannot score a 5 under the rubric.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description implies the use case (verifying claims in text for hallucinations) and notes a cost constraint ('耗 detect 额度'), but it gives no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternatives to sibling tools like check_safety or verify_agent. This is implied usage only.

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

All HallucC — Hallucination & Safety Guardian tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.