Skip to main content
Glama

eicv_suppress_hallucinations

Verify LLM outputs against provided context and suppress unsupported claims, returning a rewritten response with an audit trail.

Instructions

Verify an LLM response and optionally rewrite hallucinated claims.

Returns the (possibly rewritten) output and per-claim audit trail. Computation is fully local — no neural model, no LLM calls.

Modes: audit — analyze only; no rewrite. Use for telemetry/dashboards. annotate — keep output; append verification warnings at end. strict — graduated 4-action policy: supported → PASS (no change) abstain → HEDGE (append "[unverified]") hallucinated → SUPPRESS (remove claim sentence)

Profiles tune the abstain band: rag (default) — strict, for retrieval-augmented generation qa — moderate-strict for QA outputs summarization — tolerant of paraphrase dialogue — broader abstain band fact_check — hardest (FEVER-like setting)

Returns SuppressionResult with:

  • rewritten_output: the (possibly modified) response

  • n_claims / n_supported / n_abstained / n_hallucinated

  • suppressed_count / warned_count

  • hallucination_rate: 0..1 (n_hallucinated / n_claims)

  • certificates: list of per-claim EICVCertificate

  • latency_ms

Accuracy on public datasets is documented in benchmarks/results/. False-positive and false-negative rates are non-zero — a truthful claim can be wrongly suppressed, and a false claim can pass through. Audit-mode is the safe default for compliance- sensitive applications.

Args: context: The grounding evidence the LLM was supposed to use output: The LLM's response text to verify and possibly rewrite profile: Suppression profile (default "rag") mode: "audit" | "annotate" | "strict" (default "strict")

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
modeNostrict
outputYes
contextYes
profileNorag

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes
Behavior5/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It fully discloses behavior: each mode's actions, profile tuning, accuracy caveats (non-zero false positives/negatives), and the detailed return structure. This is exceptionally transparent.

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 detailed but well-structured with sections for modes, profiles, returns, and caveats. It is front-loaded with the core purpose. While it is long, every sentence adds necessary information, justifying the length.

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, the description covers all aspects: behavior, parameters, modes, profiles, return values (even including example fields like hallucination_rate and certificates), and caveats. No output schema is provided, but the description makes the result structure clear.

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

Parameters5/5

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

With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully explains all four parameters: context, output, profile, and mode. It provides meanings, defaults, and allowed values (e.g., mode options, profile list), adding significant value beyond the schema.

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 the tool verifies LLM responses and optionally rewrites hallucinated claims. It distinguishes itself from siblings like verify_response and eicv_verify_claim by highlighting it is fully local with no neural model or LLM calls. The specific modes and profiles further clarify the purpose.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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 each mode (audit, annotate, strict) and profile (rag, qa, etc.). It recommends audit-mode for compliance-sensitive applications. However, it does not explicitly mention when NOT to use this tool or directly compare to sibling tools like eicv_verify_claim.

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/juyterman1000/entroly'

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