Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Antigravity Truth Guard

Antigravity Truth Guard

by bushold-dev
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Local

truth_verify_plan

Verifies proposed technical plans against cited ground-truth facts before execution, helping prevent hallucinated code changes by flagging mismatches and requiring factual support.

Instructions

Anti-hallucination verification gate: checks proposed plan against ground truth facts using multi-tier LLM engine

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": {
      "proposed_plan": "<proposed_plan>",
      "cited_fact_ids": "<cited_fact_ids>",
      "target_files": "<target_files>"
    },
    "name": "truth_verify_plan"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
project_dirNoOptional absolute path to project root directory (must reside in authorized workspace)
target_filesYesList of file paths intended to be created or modified (mandatory non-empty array)
proposed_planYesThe proposed technical plan, architecture changes, or code implementation details
cited_fact_idsYesArray of fact_id references retrieved from truth_search

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv2.1.0

TDQS

B3.1/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals the mechanism ('multi-tier LLM engine') and that it checks a plan against facts, but omits critical behavior: whether it mutates anything, what it returns, whether it blocks execution, permission requirements, or failure modes.

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 that front-loads the key concept ('Anti-hallucination verification gate'). It is appropriately sized for a short definition, though the terseness contributes to gaps in guidance rather than conciseness itself being a flaw.

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?

For a verification tool with four parameters and no annotations or output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what the verification returns, how results should be interpreted, or how the tool relates to the truth_search workflow, leaving an agent with significant uncertainty before invocation.

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 already documents all four parameters, including that cited_fact_ids should reference truth_search results. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the input schema provides, making baseline 3 appropriate.

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 states a specific verb ('checks') and resource ('proposed plan') against 'ground truth facts', which clearly identifies the operation. It does not explicitly contrast with siblings like truth_search or truth_upsert_rule, but the 'verification gate' framing is distinct enough for an agent to infer its role.

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?

Calling it an 'anti-hallucination verification gate' implies it should be used before acting on a plan, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative guidance. The required cited_fact_ids parameter hints that truth_search should be used first, but this is left to inference.

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