zetesis
This server evaluates scientific and biomedical claims for due diligence, retrieves signed dossiers, verifies attestations, and reports account credits.
Evaluate a claim (
evaluate_claim): grades the rigor and evidence behind a scientific, clinical, or AI/ML claim — methodology, data harmonization, statistics, reproducibility, and backing literature/trials/filings — citing sources by hard IDs (PMID, DOI, NCT, NIH grant, SEC filing). Takes a claim plus optional context and documents; supportsscreen(fast, free, no token) ordeep(full signed dossier, needs access) depth, andresearchordiligencemode.Retrieve a dossier (
check_evaluation): fetch the result and rendered dossier link for a previously started deep evaluation by itsjob_id.Verify an attestation (
verify_attestation): independently re-check that a signed dossier's claim, evidence, and conclusion are unaltered; no account required.Check account status (
account_status): see the caller's plan and remaining free evaluations or dossier credits.
Click on "Deploy Server".
Wait a few minutes for the server to deploy. Once ready, it will show a "Started" state.
In the chat, type
@followed by the MCP server name and your instructions, e.g., "@zetesis evaluate the claim that mRNA vaccines alter DNA"
That's it! The server will respond to your query, and you can continue using it as needed.
Here is a step-by-step guide with screenshots.
Zetesis
Scientific due diligence on a claim, from inside Claude, Copilot, or any MCP host.
Give Zetesis a claim, an abstract, a paper, a grant or a deck. It routes the claim to its scientific class, then returns the questions a domain reviewer would ask, the failure patterns that caught comparable claims before, and the public evidence bearing on it, with a PMID, DOI, NCT number, NIH grant number or SEC filing reference on every source. Every identifier it hands back was retrieved. None are generated.
It can also evaluate a claim as it stood in an earlier year, restricting evidence to what existed by then, so a claim is judged on what was knowable at the time rather than on how it turned out.
Install
No account, key or token is required for any of these.
Where | Command |
Terminal chat |
|
Claude Code |
|
Claude Code plugin (tools plus skills) |
|
Codex |
|
Gemini CLI |
|
Browser |
Related MCP server: clearon-source-audit
Chat in the terminal
uv tool install zetesis # or: pipx install zetesis
zetesiszetesis opens a chat in the terminal with the hosted Zetesis agent. Ask a question, or drag
a deck or paper (PDF, DOCX or PPTX) into the window, and watch it scope the claim, search the
dated record and grade each dimension. Follow-up questions use the same evidence. /help lists the commands
(/attach, /sources, /new, /web). No account or key is needed.
Connect it
The hosted server is at https://api.zetesis.science/mcp, over Streamable HTTP.
No account, key or token is required.
Claude Code:
claude mcp add --transport http zetesis https://api.zetesis.science/mcpClaude Desktop (claude_desktop_config.json):
{
"mcpServers": {
"zetesis": {
"type": "http",
"url": "https://api.zetesis.science/mcp"
}
}
}Any other MCP client:
Client | How |
Microsoft Copilot Studio | Tools, then Add a tool, then Model Context Protocol. Server URL, auth None. |
ChatGPT | Settings, then Connectors, then Developer mode. Add the URL. |
Gemini CLI |
|
Codex |
|
For Gemini's settings.json, use httpUrl rather than url; the latter is SSE and will not
connect. Full setup notes: https://api.zetesis.science/docs
Tools
zetesis_scope routes the claim and returns the diligence apparatus for its class: the
questions a reviewer would ask, structured by substrate, methods, cohort and risk of bias, a
failure-pattern taxonomy carrying the companies each pattern was derived from, and the edge cases
where those patterns were wrong. A checklist that only ever fires positive teaches over-rejection,
so the counterexamples ship alongside it.
zetesis_evidence runs the searches and returns a deduplicated bundle from Europe PMC,
ClinicalTrials.gov, openFDA, NIH RePORTER and SEC EDGAR, every source carrying a hard public
identifier, followed by the grading rubric so you grade the evidence yourself in context.
Neither of those calls a language model. They return in under a second, cost nothing to run, and send nothing to a model provider. That is usually the answer a security reviewer is looking for.
evaluate_claim produces Zetesis's own graded reading server-side. Slower, and only needed
when the assessment itself is the deliverable rather than the evidence.
verify_attestation re-checks a signed Zetesis record to confirm its claim, evidence and
conclusion have not been altered since signing. Needs no account.
Claim classes: genomics and Mendelian randomisation, single-cell, bulk omics, CRISPR screens, clinical trials, real-world evidence, AI clinical decision support, diagnostics, preclinical models, cell and gene therapy, structural biology.
Why the year fence matters
Ask a general model about a 2020 claim today and it answers with years of hindsight; the publication that mattered at the time is buried under everything published since.
Measured on a control claim: unfenced retrieval missed the pivotal publication entirely and scored 35% evidence coverage. Fenced to the claim's own year, the same query set retrieved it and coverage rose to 79%. So the fence is not only about honesty in retrospect. It is a retrieval precision feature.
Set as_of to the year a claim was made for anything that is not brand new.
Try it
What did the published evidence actually support about aducanumab and cognitive
decline at the end of 2019, using only sources available by then?Then ask the same question without the year and compare. The difference is the point.
Privacy
The evidence tools send nothing to a model provider. evaluate_claim processes claim text through
a model sub-processor, named along with retention terms and hosting region in the
privacy policy. Claim text is not logged; only metadata
(the routed class, depth, counts) is kept.
The Python client
This repository also publishes a thin stdio MCP client to PyPI, which predates the hosted server
and exposes an older tool set (evaluate_claim, check_evaluation, verify_attestation,
account_status). It holds no keys and runs no model; every call is proxied to the hosted engine,
and it needs a token.
Prefer the hosted endpoint above. It needs no token and carries the current tools. The client remains for existing stdio setups:
claude mcp add zetesis --env ZETESIS_TOKEN=zk_... -- uvx --from zetesis zetesis-clientRun from a terminal, zetesis opens the chat above. Launched by an MCP host over stdio, it
runs this client, so zetesis and zetesis-client both work in MCP configs.
Tokens: https://api.zetesis.science/request-access
ZETESIS_TOKENsets the token (verification works without one)ZETESIS_APIoverrides the API base, defaulthttps://api.zetesis.science
Security
Report vulnerabilities privately to avidan.r@zetesis.science. See SECURITY.md.
MIT licensed. The hosted engine is a separate service.
mcp-name: io.github.reutavidan/zetesis
Available Tools
4 toolsaccount_statusARead-onlyInspect
Show the caller's Zetesis plan and remaining free evaluations or dossier credits.
Inputs: no named parameters. Returns: result
check_evaluationARead-onlyInspect
Get the result of a full (deep) Zetesis dossier started earlier. Returns the reading and the rendered dossier link once it is ready.
Args: job_id: the id returned by evaluate_claim for a deep evaluation.
Inputs: job_id (required). Returns: result
evaluate_claimARead-onlyInspect
Evaluate how rigorously a scientific, biomedical, clinical, or AI/ML claim was derived, and how well the evidence supports it.
Use this whenever someone wants to assess, screen, sanity-check, or do due diligence on a research claim, a study, a paper, an abstract, a preprint, a grant or a pitch: whether the methodology is sound, whether the data was harmonized and controlled properly, whether the statistics hold, whether the result reproduces, and how well the public literature, clinical trials, and filings back it. It grades each evidence dimension and returns an overall reading with sources cited by hard id (PMID, DOI, NCT, NIH grant, SEC filing). Works for drug, omics, target-validation, diagnostic, and AI-model claims.
A screen is free and needs no token. A full attested dossier (deep) is the signed, independently re-checkable audit and needs access.
Args: claim: the claim to evaluate, in one or two sentences. context: optional background (stage, field, the decision at hand). documents: optional source text (a deck, abstract, or paper). depth: "screen" for a fast, free pass (no token needed), "deep" for the full attested dossier (needs access). mode: "research" (science only) or "diligence" (adds the capital reading); deep only.
Inputs: claim (required), mode, depth, context, +1 more. Returns: result
verify_attestationARead-onlyInspect
Verify a Zetesis attestation, confirming an evaluation's claim, evidence, and conclusion have not been altered since it was signed. Use when someone has a Zetesis dossier or attestation and wants to independently re-check it. No account needed.
Args: attestation_json: the full attestation object as JSON text.
Inputs: attestation_json (required). Returns: result
Tool Schema Changelog
Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Loading tool schema changelog…
TDQS
Scored across 4 tools
Each tool serves a distinct function: creating evaluations, retrieving deep dossiers, verifying attestations, and checking account status. No overlap in purpose.
Most tools follow a verb_noun pattern (evaluate_claim, check_evaluation, verify_attestation), but account_status is a noun_noun phrase, creating a minor inconsistency.
4 tools is appropriate for a focused service like claim evaluation. It covers the essential operations without being too sparse or excessive.
Core lifecycle of evaluation creation, retrieval, and verification is covered, but missing a tool to list or manage past evaluations, which may be needed for workflow continuity.
Maintenance
Related MCP Connectors
Search and cite research claims with their evidence and reliability scores; publish claimsets.
1Evidence-backed crypto due diligence with sources, freshness, and a runtime receipt on every call.
Verify stock theses against public filings with a source-backed evidence ledger.
Checks a claim at its primary source and grades it. A person reviews every answer.
Related MCP Servers
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityCmaintenanceEnables traceable scholarly literature reviews using free APIs, generating reports where every claim links to evidence IDs.MIT
- AlicenseBqualityCmaintenanceEnables revision-bound source audits with exact article fingerprinting, claim-to-source mapping, quotation verification, and immutable JSON evidence reports for prepublication review.9MIT
- FlicenseNot gradedqualityNot gradedmaintenanceEnables auditing scientific papers for methodological biases such as selection bias and p-hacking, and assessing citation credibility and research consensus.-
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityBmaintenanceEnables traceable research workflows by searching uploaded sources, verifying citations, routing uncertain or high-risk requests to human review, and streaming answers with an audit trail.MIT