Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Hallucination Firewall

Hallucination Firewall

by Parvathy-Raj
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

verify_claim

Checks a single factual claim against recorded tool outputs so AI agents can confirm support and block unsupported statements.

Instructions

Check one standalone factual claim against recorded tool outputs.

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>"
    },
    "name": "verify_claim"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
claimYes

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

B3.3/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It never states what happens if no tool outputs have been recorded, whether the check is read-only, or how ambiguity in a claim is handled; 'recorded tool outputs' is the only behavioral hint.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; every clause carries meaning (what to check, the unit, and the evidence source).

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. However, with no annotations and no guidance on evidence preconditions or relation to record_evidence and verify_answer, an agent could call this before any evidence exists.

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 0% and the schema merely labels the field 'Claim'. The description rescues this somewhat by constraining the value to a single standalone factual claim rather than an answer or a multi-claim passage, but gives no format or length guidance.

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 ('Check') and a precisely scoped resource ('one standalone factual claim') and names the verification source ('recorded tool outputs'). This is clear enough to distinguish it from verify_answer, which presumably handles composite answers, though the sibling is never named explicitly.

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?

'one standalone factual claim' implies a scope limit (not multi-part claims) and 'against recorded tool outputs' implies evidence must already be recorded, likely via record_evidence. Neither constraint is stated as an explicit when-to-use rule, and no alternative tool is named.

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