Validate a claim by checking its connection to an evidence source. Provide a claim ID to confirm whether it is backed by real evidence, supporting evidence-based assessment.
Check whether a claim is linked to a real evidence source.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| claim_id | Yes | ||
| verified | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It only restates the operation and does not disclose the return type, whether the check is read-only, whether external evidence sources are contacted, or how failures are reported. The word 'Check' weakly implies read-only behavior, but this is not explicit.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single front-loaded sentence with no filler or repetition, so it is structurally concise. It is somewhat under-specified, but the brevity itself is not a structural flaw.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no output schema and no annotations, the description should tell the agent what the check returns and whether any state changes occur; it does neither. It also leaves the semantically non-obvious 'verified' parameter unexplained, making the tool incomplete for reliable invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain the 'verified' boolean parameter or its default true value. It vaguely maps claim_id to the 'claim' being checked, but it adds no meaning beyond the raw parameter names.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Check') and names the resource ('a claim linked to a real evidence source'), making the core operation clear. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling validate_knowledge_dag, but the claim-specific wording is sufficient to understand the tool's focus.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool rather than related siblings such as validate_knowledge_dag, get_evidence, or save_benchmark_claim. The description states what the tool does but leaves tool selection entirely to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.