Skip to main content
Glama

срезAI — MCP-сервер и поисковый API для ИИ-агентов

by ru.srezai
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Проверить утверждение по источникам / Verify a claim against sources

verify_claim
Read-onlyIdempotent

Проверяет утверждение: ищет источники, читает несколько независимых страниц и возвращает вердикт с дословными цитатами. Каждая цитата сверена с текстом страницы - не найденная в тексте отбрасывается вместе со своим доводом.

Когда: факт, который нельзя брать на веру - цифра, дата, «X поддерживает Y», утверждение из ответа пользователя или из вашей же памяти. Особенно если ваш контекст не вмещает 4-5 страниц целиком: вся черновая работа делается на нашей стороне, к вам приходят только вердикт и цитаты. Когда не: нужен обзор темы - deep_research; нужен текст конкретной страницы - read_url. Вердикт: supported - источники подтверждают; refuted - опровергают; mixed - расходятся между собой; unverified - подтверждения не нашлось. Последние два - нормальный результат, а не ошибка: значит, утверждение нельзя считать проверенным. Считает в независимых доменах: три цитаты с одного сайта - один голос. Смотрите agreeing/disagreeing и confidence, а не только вердикт. Если сайт не открылся, слот не теряется: берём следующего кандидата из выдачи, поэтому прочитанных источников обычно ровно столько, сколько вы заказали. Когда проверка всё же вышла неполной, это сказано в вердикте и в caveats. Возвращает: вердикт, уверенность, цитаты со ссылками и оговорки. Источников - 2-5. Время: 15-60 с / 15-60 s. Цена: 8 кредитов (поиск, чтение источников и работа модели).

Verifies a statement: searches for sources, reads several independent pages and returns a verdict with verbatim quotes. Every quote is checked against the page text - one that is not found there is dropped along with its argument.

Use when: a fact you should not take on trust - a number, a date, "X supports Y", a claim from the user or from your own memory. Especially when your context cannot hold 4-5 pages at once: the legwork happens on our side, you receive only the verdict and the quotes. Do not use when: you need an overview of a topic - deep_research; you need the text of one specific page - read_url. Verdict: supported - the sources confirm it; refuted - they contradict it; mixed - they disagree with each other; unverified - no confirmation was found. The last two are normal outcomes, not errors: they mean the claim cannot be treated as verified. Counted in independent domains: three quotes from one site are one voice. Read agreeing/disagreeing and confidence, not just the verdict. If a site does not open, the slot is not lost: the next candidate from the search results is read instead, so you usually get exactly the number of sources you asked for. When the check still came out incomplete, the verdict and the caveats say so. Returns: verdict, confidence, quotes with links and caveats. Sources: 2-5. Time: 15-60 с / 15-60 s. Cost: 8 credits (search, source reading and model work).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
claimYesУтверждение одной фразой, как проверяемый факт: «Node.js 22 - LTS», «ставка НДС для IT-услуг в России 20%». Не вопрос и не тема: чем конкретнее формулировка, тем точнее проверка. / The statement as a single sentence, phrased as a checkable fact: "Node.js 22 is LTS". Not a question and not a topic: the more specific the wording, the sharper the check.
queryNoСвой поисковый запрос, если утверждение плохо ищется как есть (длинное, со сленгом). По умолчанию ищем по тексту утверждения. / A custom search query when the claim searches poorly as written (long, slangy). By default the claim text itself is the query.
languageNoЯзык поиска источников / Source search language: auto, ru, en
timeRangeNoСвежесть источников - для утверждений, которые могли устареть (цены, версии, должности): all, day, week, month, year. / Source recency - for claims that may have gone stale (prices, versions, job titles): all, day, week, month, year.
maxSourcesNoСколько независимых источников читать (2-5, по умолчанию 4). Меньше - быстрее, больше - надёжнее. На цену не влияет. / How many independent sources to read (2-5, default 4). Fewer is faster, more is sturdier. Does not affect the price.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed3 schema fields changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / claim / description
      Previous value: -"Утверждение одной фразой, как проверяемый факт: «Node.js 22 — LTS», «ставка НДС для IT-услуг в России 20%». Не вопрос и не тема: чем конкретнее формулировка, тем точнее проверка. / The statement as a single sentence, phrased as a checkable fact: \"Node.js 22 is LTS\". Not a question and not a topic: the more specific the wording, the sharper the check."New value: +"Утверждение одной фразой, как проверяемый факт: «Node.js 22 - LTS», «ставка НДС для IT-услуг в России 20%». Не вопрос и не тема: чем конкретнее формулировка, тем точнее проверка. / The statement as a single sentence, phrased as a checkable fact: \"Node.js 22 is LTS\". Not a question and not a topic: the more specific the wording, the sharper the check."
    • changedInput schema / properties / maxSources / description
      Previous value: -"Сколько независимых источников читать (2–5, по умолчанию 4). Меньше — быстрее, больше — надёжнее. На цену не влияет. / How many independent sources to read (2–5, default 4). Fewer is faster, more is sturdier. Does not affect the price."New value: +"Сколько независимых источников читать (2-5, по умолчанию 4). Меньше - быстрее, больше - надёжнее. На цену не влияет. / How many independent sources to read (2-5, default 4). Fewer is faster, more is sturdier. Does not affect the price."
    • changedInput schema / properties / timeRange / description
      Previous value: -"Свежесть источников — для утверждений, которые могли устареть (цены, версии, должности): all, day, week, month, year. / Source recency — for claims that may have gone stale (prices, versions, job titles): all, day, week, month, year."New value: +"Свежесть источников - для утверждений, которые могли устареть (цены, версии, должности): all, day, week, month, year. / Source recency - for claims that may have gone stale (prices, versions, job titles): all, day, week, month, year."
  2. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / timeRange / description
      Previous value: -"Свежесть источников — для утверждений, которые могли устареть (цены, версии, должности): '', day, week, month, year. / Source recency — for claims that may have gone stale (prices, versions, job titles): '', day, week, month, year."New value: +"Свежесть источников — для утверждений, которые могли устареть (цены, версии, должности): all, day, week, month, year. / Source recency — for claims that may have gone stale (prices, versions, job titles): all, day, week, month, year."
  3. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / timeRange / enum
      Previous value: -[
-  "",
-  "day",
-  "week",
-  "month",
-  "year"
-]New value: +[
+  "all",
+  "day",
+  "week",
+  "month",
+  "year"
+]
  4. Added

TDQS

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare the safe read-only/idempotent profile, but the description adds substantial behavior: quotes not found in page text are dropped along with their argument, sources are counted in independent domains ('three quotes from one site are one voice'), failed fetches are replaced so the requested source count is still delivered, and incomplete checks surface in the verdict and caveats. It also gives runtime (15-60s) and cost (8 credits).

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?

Front-loaded and well ordered: purpose, then when/when-not, then verdict semantics, then returns/time/cost. Every sentence carries information, but the full Russian/English duplication roughly doubles the payload for a reader who needs only one language.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the return contract and does so fully: verdict values are enumerated with their meanings, plus confidence, quotes with links, and caveats, alongside source count, timing, and cost. The 'mixed/unverified are normal outcomes, not errors' note is exactly the kind of interpretation guidance an agent needs.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning: the independent-domain counting rule explains how maxSources actually translates into evidence weight, and the failed-site replacement note clarifies that asking for N sources still yields N reads. It stops short of restating the claim/query/language/timeRange semantics, which the schema already covers well.

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?

Opens with a precise verb+resource+mechanism: 'Verifies a statement: searches for sources, reads several independent pages and returns a verdict with verbatim quotes.' It immediately differentiates itself from siblings by naming deep_research and read_url as the tools for the adjacent jobs.

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 'Use when' / 'Do not use when' blocks with concrete triggers (numbers, dates, 'X supports Y', claims from the user or from the agent's own memory) and named alternatives for the exclusion cases. Nothing is left to inference.

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

All срезAI — MCP-сервер и поисковый API для ИИ-агентов toolsInspect
Try in Browser
Let your AI agent see the webWeb-to-screenshot MCP for Claude, Cursor and Codex. No cookie banners. Free to start.snap-render.comAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources