Skip to main content
Glama

Lenz Fact-Check

Get deep fact-check result

get_verification
Read-only

Get a deep verify_claim result: wait for a running check by task_id, or fetch a completed one by verification_id.

With a ``task_id`` (from `verify_claim` or `select_claims`) this waits for
the run to finish and returns ``status: completed`` with the
verdict, the 1–10 Lenz score, confidence, key finding, executive summary,
top sources, a ``suggested_rewrite`` when the claim can be corrected (not
verified itself: a suggestion to review, never a checked fact), the
``depth`` the verdict was produced at and the
``verification_id`` — pass that to `ask_followup` for a grounded follow-up.
If the check needs a decision (the text holds several claims) it
returns ``status: needs_input`` with the options. Still ``processing``
after the wait means tell the user it is still running and call again;
`list_verifications` finds it later if the conversation moves on. A
completed result replaces any earlier quick verdict on the same claim; its
``supersedes`` and ``presentation`` say how to tell the user. With an 8-character
``verification_id`` it returns the stored result immediately. (No Lenz
link: verify_claim results are private to the caller, so a claim-page link
would be share-gated rather than publicly viewable.)

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
task_idYesThe task_id returned by verify_claim or select_claims (waits for the running check), or the 8-character verification_id of a completed result (fetches it).

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations only declare a safe read; the description adds substantial behavior beyond them — the waiting semantics, the three possible status values (completed/needs_input/processing), the supersedes/presentation handling when a deep result replaces an earlier quick verdict, and why no shareable claim-page link is returned (results are private).

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The lead sentence is well front-loaded, but the body is a dense ~180-word block with several stacked parentheticals (the suggested_rewrite caveat, the Lenz-link aside) that are tangential to invocation. Much of the return-field enumeration duplicates the output schema, so not every clause earns its place.

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 read tool with an output schema and full annotation coverage, the description covers everything an agent needs: which argument form to pass, what each status means, how to proceed on non-terminal statuses, and where to send the returned verification_id.

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 parameter description already covers the task_id/verification_id duality, so the baseline is 3. The description adds the 8-character length constraint, the wait-vs-immediate behavior tied to each form, and the downstream use of the returned verification_id, giving real extra meaning.

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 (get) and resource (deep verify_claim result) and immediately splits the two modes: wait on a task_id or fetch a completed verification_id. This clearly separates it from verify_claim (which starts a check) and list_verifications (which finds one).

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Explicit routing: use task_id to wait, verification_id to fetch immediately; if still processing, tell the user and call again or fall back to list_verifications; if needs_input, present options. It also names ask_followup as the downstream consumer of the returned verification_id.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.