Skip to main content
Glama

Stipple — Document Verification & Extraction

Detect AI-written prose

detect_ai_text
Read-only

Estimate the PROBABILITY that a document's text was AI-GENERATED (LLM-written prose).

USE THIS WHEN someone shares prose — an essay, cover letter, article, review, application,
or report (or a link to one) — and asks: did an AI / ChatGPT write this? is this
human-written? detect AI text.

Provide the document ONE way: `text` (pasted markdown/plain prose), `url` (a public http(s)
link to a page or PDF — fetched server-side, the cheapest call), OR `bytes_b64` (a base64
PDF/file, plus `filename` for routing). Returns
`{probability, lean, tells, reasoning, applicable}`.

HONEST SCOPE: the probability is the model's CONFIDENCE, not a calibrated truth — it can
false-flag templated/coached or non-native-English writing. It works on PROSE only: for a
form/table/numeric document (payslip, statement) it returns `applicable: false` and abstains,
because AI-text detection false-positives badly there — use `verify_document` (the
authenticity engine) for those, and `verify_references` to check a doc's citations/claims.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
urlNo
textNo
filenameNodocument.pdf
bytes_b64No

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Added

TDQS

A5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description discloses that the probability is the model's confidence, not calibrated truth, that false-flagging can occur, that non-prose documents return applicable: false and abstain, and that URL fetching is server-side. This is substantial behavioral context that annotations alone do not provide.

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 well-structured with clear sections: core definition, usage trigger, input modes, return shape, and honest limitations. Every sentence adds actionable information, and the key scoping and usage details are front-loaded.

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?

The description covers input modalities, expected output fields, abstention behavior, limitations, and alternative tools for out-of-scope inputs. Despite the presence of an output schema, it still summarizes the return object, and no critical calling context is missing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters5/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by explaining each input mode: text for pasted prose, url for server-fetched public links/PDFs, and bytes_b64 plus filename for base64 files. It also clarifies that exactly one document input should be provided, which is essential for correct invocation.

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 opens with a precise verb and resource: 'Estimate the PROBABILITY that a document's text was AI-GENERATED (LLM-written prose).' It clearly defines the tool's scope and differentiates it from related tools by naming verify_document and verify_references for non-prose cases.

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 THIS WHEN' guidance covers the exact scenario: someone shares prose and asks whether it was AI-written. It also provides explicit exclusion criteria (forms, tables, numeric documents) and names alternative tools for those cases, making selection unambiguous.

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.