SiteGraph

claimreview_from_url

Extract schema.org ClaimReview data—claim, rating, dates, and appearances—from a fact-check article URL to verify fact-checking details.

Instructions

Extract schema.org ClaimReview data (claim, rating, dates, appearances) from a fact-check article.

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": {
      "url": "<url>"
    },
    "name": "claimreview_from_url"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`url`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Oct 26, 2026

TDQS

B3.4/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it says nothing about whether the URL is fetched live, what happens when no ClaimReview markup exists (empty result vs. error), or any failure/rate-limit behavior. The output schema covers the success shape, but the failure semantics of this extraction are undisclosed.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

A single sentence with the action front-loaded and the extracted field list in parentheses; nothing is padded or redundant.

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

Completeness4/5

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

With one simple parameter and an output schema that documents return values, the description covers what is needed to call it correctly. The one remaining gap is behavior when the target page lacks ClaimReview markup.

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?

There is a single required 'url' parameter with 0% schema description coverage, but the description's phrase 'from a fact-check article' does constrain the URL to a fact-check article page rather than an arbitrary link. That is meaningful but minimal added semantics for the only parameter.

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 gives a specific verb ('Extract') and a precise resource ('schema.org ClaimReview data') and enumerates the extracted fields (claim, rating, dates, appearances). It is clear on its own, but it never contrasts itself with the sibling fact_checks tool, which an agent could easily confuse it with.

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?

The phrase 'from a fact-check article' implies the precondition that the URL must point at a fact-check page carrying ClaimReview markup, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no when-not, and no routing to alternatives like fact_checks or claim_timeline. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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

Deploy Server