Check one claim about Palestine against the desk's claim library and evidence archive. Returns the matched claim family, verdict, a short evidence-backed answer, and citation URLs. Rate-limited — send a single clear claim per call and relay the citations with the answer.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| claim | Yes | The claim to check, as one plain-language sentence. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses rate-limiting and the nature of the output (claim family, verdict, evidence-backed answer, citation URLs). It implies a read-only operation with 'check', but does not explicitly state non-mutating behavior or any side effects. This is adequate but not exhaustive.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise, consisting of two sentences that front-load the purpose and return format, followed by a rate-limit note and instruction to relay citations. There is no unnecessary detail or repetition, and it fits the information density needed for this tool.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With a single parameter, no annotations, and no output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: what it checks, what it returns (claim family, verdict, evidence answer, citations), and usage constraints (rate limit, single claim). It provides a complete mental model for a simple tool without overcomplicating.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description for the single parameter 'claim' is already complete ('The claim to check, as one plain-language sentence.'). The tool description adds minimal value beyond that, only reinforcing the need for a 'single clear claim' in the usage guideline. With 100% schema coverage, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function: 'Check one claim about Palestine against the desk's claim library and evidence archive.' It specifies the resource (claim library and evidence archive) and the action (check) and distinguishes itself from sibling search tools by emphasizing claim verification with a structured verdict and citations.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides usage constraints ('Rate-limited — send a single clear claim per call') and instructs to relay citations, which implies when to use it (for one claim at a time). However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or scenarios where this tool should not be used, leaving the comparative guidance implicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.