Skip to main content
Glama

validate_sources

Verify the credibility of sources and claims using predefined validation frameworks such as empirical, responsible, harmonic, or pluralistic methods to ensure ethical and reliable information.

Instructions

Validate sources and evidence using configured framework

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
frameworkNoValidation framework to use
textYesText containing claims and sources to validate

Implementation Reference

  • Main execution logic for the validate_sources tool: parses framework, extracts potential sources via regex matching phrases like 'according to', generates framework-specific validation prompts using external MCP servers (Exa, Brave, ArXiv, Google Scholar), and returns text summary and JSON with sources and prompts.
    if (name === "validate_sources") {
      const framework: keyof typeof VALIDATION_FRAMEWORKS = 
        (typeof args.framework === 'string' && args.framework in VALIDATION_FRAMEWORKS) 
          ? args.framework as keyof typeof VALIDATION_FRAMEWORKS 
          : VALIDATION_FRAMEWORK;
      
      // Extract sources
      const sourcePattern = /according to|cited by|reported by|study by|research by|experts|scientists/gi;
      const sources = [];
      let match: RegExpExecArray | null;
      while ((match = sourcePattern.exec(args.text)) !== null) {
        const context = args.text.substring(
          Math.max(0, match.index - 30),
          Math.min(args.text.length, match.index + 70)
        );
        sources.push({
          type: "citation",
          context: context.trim()
        });
      }
    
      // Generate validation prompts for each source
      const validationPrompts = sources.flatMap((source: { type: string; context: string }) => {
        const basePrompts = [
          `- Use Exa MCP server to verify credibility of: "${source.context}"`,
          `- Use Brave Search to find independent verification: "${source.context}"`,
          `- Search ArXiv for related technical papers: "${source.context}"`,
          `- Use Google Scholar MCP server to check academic citations: "${source.context}"`,
          `- Cross-reference findings between different platforms to establish credibility`
        ];
    
        if (framework === "empirical" || framework === "pluralistic") {
          basePrompts.push(
            `- Compare methodologies and results across different studies`,
            `- Verify replication status and reproducibility`,
            `- Cross-validate findings between different research groups`
          );
        }
    
        if (framework === "responsible" || framework === "pluralistic") {
          basePrompts.push(
            `- Use Exa MCP server to search for community perspectives: "${source.context}"`,
            `- Compare academic findings with real-world impacts`,
            `- Cross-reference with local knowledge and experiences`
          );
        }
    
        if (framework === "harmonic" || framework === "pluralistic") {
          basePrompts.push(
            `- Compare perspectives across different cultural contexts`,
            `- Synthesize findings from multiple knowledge systems`,
            `- Identify areas of consensus and divergence`
          );
        }
    
        return basePrompts;
      });
    
      return {
        content: [
          {
            type: "text",
            text: `Source validation using ${framework} framework:\n\n` +
                 `Found ${sources.length} sources to validate.\n\n` +
                 `Validation steps:\n${validationPrompts.join("\n")}`
          },
          {
            type: "text",
            text: JSON.stringify({
              framework,
              sources,
              validationPrompts
            }, null, 2)
          }
        ],
      };
    }
  • Input schema for validate_sources tool defining required 'text' parameter and optional 'framework' enum.
    {
      name: "validate_sources",
      description: "Validate sources and evidence using configured framework",
      inputSchema: {
        type: "object",
        properties: {
          text: {
            type: "string",
            description: "Text containing claims and sources to validate",
          },
          framework: {
            type: "string",
            description: "Validation framework to use",
            enum: ["empirical", "responsible", "harmonic", "pluralistic"],
          }
        },
        required: ["text"],
      },
    },
  • src/index.ts:20-22 (registration)
    Server capabilities registration declaring support for the validate_sources tool.
    analyze_claim: true,
    validate_sources: true,
    check_manipulation: true
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden but provides minimal behavioral insight. It doesn't disclose whether this is a read-only operation, if it modifies data, authentication needs, rate limits, or output format. The phrase 'configured framework' hints at external configuration but lacks details.

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 a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action, though it could be more structured by elaborating on key aspects like output or context.

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

Completeness2/5

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

Given no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what validation results look like, error conditions, or behavioral traits. For a tool with two parameters and undefined output, more context is needed to guide effective use.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying validation uses a framework, which is already covered by the 'framework' parameter's enum. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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

Purpose3/5

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

The description states the action ('validate') and target ('sources and evidence'), but lacks specificity about what validation entails or how it differs from sibling tools like 'analyze_claim' or 'check_manipulation'. It's vague about the scope and mechanism of validation.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description mentions 'configured framework' but doesn't explain what contexts or scenarios warrant its use, nor does it reference sibling tools for comparison or exclusion.

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

Related 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/bmorphism/anti-bullshit-mcp-server'

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