Clarik Mcp Server

clarik_hallucination_detector

Verify claims by cross-checking them against specified project files to detect hallucinated information. Uses a targeted file list, not a full repository scan.

Instructions

Cross-check claims against known project files. Uses targeted file list only, never full repo scan.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "claim": "<claim>",
      "relevantFiles": "<relevantFiles>"
    },
    "name": "clarik_hallucination_detector"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`claim`	Yes	The claim or statement to verify
`relevantFiles`	Yes	File paths to check against (targeted, not full repo)
`projectPath`	No	Project root path

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0May 29, 2026

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It states targeted file list usage and no full repo scan, but does not disclose error handling, side effects, or whether it modifies anything. Moderate transparency.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with purpose, no redundant information. Every sentence earns its place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Without output schema, description covers core purpose but lacks details on return format, error cases, or behavior with missing files. Adequate for a simple verification tool but not comprehensive.

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?

Schema coverage is 100% with descriptions for all parameters. The description reinforces the targeted nature of relevantFiles but adds minimal semantic value beyond schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 the tool cross-checks claims against project files using a targeted file list, and explicitly differentiates by stating 'never full repo scan', distinguishing it from sibling tools.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

No explicit guidance on when to use vs alternatives like clarik_assumption_checker. The description implies use for claim verification against specific files, but lacks when-not-to-use or alternative recommendations.

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