VERDICT

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

corroborate_claim

Check a claim against archived output to test if a hypothesis is supported before committing to a finding.

Instructions

Check a claim against archived output without recording a finding. Useful for testing whether a hypothesis is supported before committing to it.

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": {
      "statement": "<statement>",
      "citations": "<citations>"
    },
    "name": "corroborate_claim"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Default
`statement`	Yes
`citations`	Yes
`claim_type`	No	inference
`conflicting_citations`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Jun 14, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry behavioral disclosure. It states the tool does not record a finding, which hints at read-only nature, but does not detail authentication needs, side effects, or what 'archived output' means.

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?

Two sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence front-loads the core purpose, making it easy to scan.

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

Completeness3/5

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

Given the tool has 4 parameters and an output schema, the description is minimal. It explains the purpose but lacks context on how archived output is accessed or what the output format implies. Adequate but incomplete.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%; the description adds no information about parameters. An agent must rely solely on parameter names (statement, citations, etc.), which is insufficient for correct usage.

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 checks a claim against archived output without recording a finding. It distinguishes from sibling tools that record findings (e.g., finding_propose, finding_revise) by explicitly noting the output is not recorded.

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 usage context: 'testing whether a hypothesis is supported before committing to it.' It implies a non-permanent check, but does not explicitly say when not to use or name alternatives.

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