Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Deep Research MCP Server

Deep Research MCP Server

by SECRET4422
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

fact_check_claim

Evaluate the truth of any claim by performing deep research across multiple sources and synthesizing evidence.

Instructions

Fact-check claim

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": "fact_check_claim"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
claimYes
searchDepthNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changedv1.3.1
    • removedInput schema / properties / claim / description
      Removed value: -"Claim to fact-check, e.g. 'Dehradun is the capital of Uttarakhand'"
    • removedInput schema / properties / searchDepth / description
      Removed value: -"How many sources to check"
  2. First observedv1.2.0

TDQS

D1.5/5.0
Behavior1/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavioral traits. It says nothing about mutability, authentication, rate limits, or output format, leaving the agent blind to key usage constraints.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness2/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

While very short, the description is under-specified and fails to include essential information, making it inadequate rather than concise.

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

Completeness1/5

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

For a tool with two parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is starkly incomplete. It does not explain return values, parameter usage, or any contextual information needed for correct invocation.

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

Parameters1/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0% and the tool description does not explain any parameters. The meaning of 'claim' and 'searchDepth' is left entirely to the agent's intuition.

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

Purpose2/5

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

The description 'Fact-check claim' is a tautology of the tool name, repeating it without adding specificity or distinguishing it from sibling tools like compare_sources or deep_research.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions.

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