Gemral Edge

Verify Claim Evidence

verify_claim

Verify a management claim against the independent External Evidence Graph. Returns supporting filings, government contract awards, patent grants, trade disclosures, and flags any contradicting empirical indicators.

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": {
      "claim_id": "<claim_id>"
    },
    "name": "verify_claim"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`claim_id`	Yes	UUID of the claim to verify

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description
`notice`	No	Free-tier upgrade notice; only when results are masked/delayed.
`results`	Yes	Tool result payload (read-only evidence). Shape varies by tool; scoring weights are never exposed.
`history_limit`	No	Present when the license limits history depth: earliest_allowed date, history_days and how many older items were removed.
`deprecated_fields`	No	Present only while a renamed key is still returned next to its replacement: field (old key), replacement (new key, same value), removal (ISO date after which the old key is gone).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedOct 26, 2026

addedOutput schema / properties / deprecated_fields

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Present only while a renamed key is still returned next to its replacement: field (old key), replacement (new key, same value), removal (ISO date after which the old key is gone).",
+  "items": {
+    "additionalProperties": true,
+    "type": "object"
+  },
+  "type": "array"
+}

First observedOct 23, 2026

TDQS

B3.2/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false; the description usefully adds that the check surfaces contradicting empirical indicators, not just confirmations. However, readOnlyHint=false is surprising for what reads like a lookup, and the description says nothing about cost, latency, or why a verification is not read-only — that gap matters for an agent deciding whether to call it.

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?

Two tight sentences with the action front-loaded and the evidence categories enumerated afterward. The list of evidence types is slightly enumerative but each item adds real signal about what a verification covers.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With an output schema present, enumerating return categories in the description is partly redundant, and the genuinely missing content — when this beats get_claim_history and why the operation is not read-only — is absent. Adequate for a one-parameter tool, but not complete for the sibling landscape it sits in.

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?

There is a single required claim_id with 100% schema description coverage ("UUID of the claim to verify"), so the schema fully carries parameter meaning. The description adds nothing about claim_id format, where to obtain an ID, or what happens if the claim is unknown — baseline 3.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Verify a management claim") plus the source of truth it checks against ("External Evidence Graph"), which is concrete and distinctive. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from nearby siblings like get_claim_history or verify_event_status, so it stops short of a 5.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

The description never says when to reach for this tool versus get_claim_history (history of a claim) or verify_event_status (status of an event), which are the two obvious confusables. The use case is inferable from the name alone but no routing guidance or exclusions are offered.

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

All Gemral Edge 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.