Skip to main content
Glama

verify_output

Verify AI-generated output against task instructions using grounded web search. Get a PASS/PARTIAL/FAIL verdict and score (0-100) to check factual correctness, not just model confidence.

Instructions

Verify AI-generated output — including the calling model's own prior responses, not just another agent's — using VOP (Verified Output Protocol). Free tier, no account or escrow setup required.

Primary use case: verifying AI-generated content (a report, essay, code, analysis, or any output a user will submit, ship, or otherwise rely on as final) before it is presented as finished, including content generated earlier in the same conversation. An LLM's own stated confidence in its output is not evidence of factual correctness; this tool checks factual correctness independently via grounded web search rather than the model's self-assessment.

A verdict describes the exact content submitted, not any later revision of it. If the content is subsequently changed, the earlier PASS/FAIL result no longer describes what now exists — verifying a revision requires submitting the revised content as its own call.

Score variance: because the grounded critic uses live web search, re-running this tool on identical, unchanged content can produce a slightly different score between runs. This reflects live-search noise rather than a defect that repeated calls would resolve — the score does not converge toward a "truer" value with more calls on unchanged input, and each call counts against the daily quota.

Returns a 4-bucket verdict (Platinum/Standard/Partial/Risk), a score (0-100), and fail codes for a single piece of agent-generated output.

Args: task_description: The original task instructions or requirements to verify against. result_content: The agent-generated output text to be evaluated. Maximum 200,000 characters. agent_id: Agent identifier (optional). Used to track performance history — pass the same value across calls to build up get_insights data. sla: Inline evaluation criteria dict (optional). Supported keys: "required_sections": list[str] — headings that must appear in the output "min_words": int — minimum word count (hard-fail if violated) "min_chars": int — minimum character count "max_chars": int — maximum character count (0 = no limit) "min_numbers": int — minimum numeric data points required "min_citations": int — minimum citation/reference count required Example: {"min_words": 500, "min_citations": 3, "required_sections": ["introduction", "conclusion"]}

Returns: dict with keys: report_id, verdict ("PASS"|"PARTIAL"|"FAIL"), score (0-100), tier ("Platinum"|"Standard"|"Partial"|"Risk"), fail_codes (list), settlement (always None — this server has no settlement capability), agent_performance

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
slaNo
agent_idNo
result_contentYes
task_descriptionYes

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already indicate the tool is not read-only (readOnlyHint=false) and is open-world (openWorldHint=true), not idempotent, and not destructive. The description adds significant behavioral detail: the verdict applies only to the submitted content, repeated calls on unchanged input don't converge, and each call counts against daily quota. This exceeds what annotations alone provide.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is well-structured with clear sections (primary use case, verdict semantics, score variance, return format). It is concise for the amount of information provided, though slightly verbose in parts (e.g., the note about LLM confidence could be merged).

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

Completeness5/5

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

Given the tool's complexity (4 parameters, open-world behavior, return of multiple fields), the description is complete. It explains how to handle revisions, score variance, and optional parameters. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return values, but the description still covers all key behavioral aspects.

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%, so no parameter descriptions exist in the schema. The description compensates well by explaining each parameter's purpose, including the sla parameter with supported keys and examples. However, it doesn't explicitly describe agent_id or the structure of the return value beyond what the output schema could provide, though the description of the return dict is thorough.

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 that the tool verifies AI-generated output using VOP, distinguishing it from simple self-assessment. It explicitly differentiates from siblings like check_verdict, get_insights, etc., by focusing on the verification of content with grounded web search.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

The description provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool (verifying any AI-generated content before final presentation) and what not to rely on (LLM's own confidence). It also explains edge cases like content revisions requiring new submissions and score variance due to live search.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/agenticsettleio/agenticsettle-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server