Skip to main content
Glama

Kaal Corpus: Verifiable Claim Layer

by io.github.wulfkaal

search_claims

Read-onlyIdempotent

Search individual assertions rather than whole papers. Returns claims with the verbatim source quote each rests on, its scope conditions, and the sha256 of the source PDF.

Ask in natural language. Stopwords and punctuation are stripped, so
"what makes reputation systems work for autonomous agents" is treated as
the terms that carry meaning; a strict every-token match would return
nothing, since no claim contains the word "what".

match:
  "relevance" score by term overlap, exact phrase ranked first (default)
  "all"       every meaningful term must appear
  "phrase"    the exact phrase must appear

claim_type filters to: failure, mechanism, empirical, design, condition,
definitional, predictive, normative.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNo
matchNorelevance
queryYes
claim_typeNo
failure_modes_onlyNo

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

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

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / match / default
      Previous value: -"all"New value: +"relevance"
  2. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / match
      Added value: +{
+  "default": "all",
+  "title": "Match",
+  "type": "string"
+}
  3. Added

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond annotations (readOnlyHint, etc.), it discloses how queries are processed (stopwords stripped, exact phrase treatment), match modes, and claim_type filters. This adds valuable behavioral context beyond the annotation hints.

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 yet informative, with clear sections for purpose, query processing, match modes, and filters. No redundant sentences.

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 output schema exists, the description covers query behavior, match options, and filters well. However, it fails to explain limit and failure_modes_only, leaving minor gaps.

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?

With 0% schema coverage, the description explains match and claim_type but omits limit, query (processing only), and failure_modes_only. It adds moderate value for some parameters but leaves others undocumented.

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 it searches individual assertions rather than whole papers and specifies what it returns (verbatim source quote, scope conditions, sha256). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_papers.

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?

It provides guidance on when to use (for claims, not papers) and explains query processing (stopword stripping) and match modes. However, it does not explicitly compare with all siblings, missing some alternative recommendations.

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

All Kaal Corpus: Verifiable Claim Layer 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

A4.3/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Each tool targets a distinct resource or action: overviews, specific claims/papers, searches by different granularities, citation help, and document verification. No two tools overlap in purpose.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tool names use lowercase snake_case with clear verb-noun or noun-preposition patterns (e.g., get_claim, search_papers, claim_layer_overview). The naming is uniform and predictable.

Tool Count5/5

With 11 tools, the set covers the core operations for exploring a scholarly corpus without being excessive. Each tool serves a clear and necessary purpose.

Completeness5/5

The tools provide comprehensive coverage for discovering, retrieving, and verifying content from the corpus: overviews, searches at paper/claim/post level, direct retrieval, and document verification. No obvious missing operations for the intended use case.

Resources