Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Hallucination Firewall

Hallucination Firewall

by Parvathy-Raj
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

explain_verdict

Retrieve full evidence passages and each tier's decision for a claim ID to see why it was supported or flagged as unsupported.

Instructions

Show the full evidence passages and what each tier decided for a claim id (e.g. "r1.c2").

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_id": "<claim_id>"
    },
    "name": "explain_verdict"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
claim_idYes

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden here. "Show" implies a read-only inspection operation, and the description discloses that it returns evidence passages and tier decisions, but it does not explicitly state side effects, permissions, or other operational constraints.

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 a single front-loaded sentence with no unnecessary wording. It states the core action and the input context efficiently.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a simple one-parameter read/explanation tool with an output schema, the description is largely complete: it says what evidence is shown and that tier decisions are included. The main missing piece is explicit usage guidance relative to sibling verification tools.

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 description coverage is 0%, and there is one required parameter. The description compensates by naming claim_id and providing the example format "r1.c2," which adds useful semantics beyond the bare schema type.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses a specific verb, "Show," and clearly identifies the resource: full evidence passages and per-tier decisions for a claim id. It even gives an example claim id format, but it does not explicitly distinguish this explanation tool from siblings such as verify_claim or verify_answer.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

The description indicates the input is a claim id, but it gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus verify_claim, verify_answer, or other sibling tools. There are no when-not conditions or alternative-routing cues.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools