Groundcheck MCP server

• attest_deliveryFree

  PURPOSE: Neutral delivery verification for agentic commerce. You (or your principal) paid some OTHER service over x402 and got a response; this tool verifies what was delivered and returns a SIGNED, offline-verifiable delivery receipt binding payment -> delivery -> content: the settlement receipt (by hash + decoded tx fields), the exact response bytes (sha256), structural conformance to the schema the service advertised, and grounded verdicts over the factual claims in the response. Returns delivery_verdict (consistent | degraded | inconsistent | unverifiable) with a rationale. GUIDELINES: Call AFTER a paid third-party call whose output you will act on or account for — data enrichment you bought, research you commissioned, any x402 purchase your principal will audit. Branch on delivery_verdict: 'consistent' -> proceed; 'degraded' -> use with caution, flag the refuted claims; 'inconsistent' -> do not rely on the delivery, keep the receipt as dispute evidence; 'unverifiable' -> nothing contradicted but nothing confirmed. Save the full response JSON — it is a self-contained dispute artifact verifiable offline months later (GET /attest/pubkey documents how). PARAMETERS: service — URL/name of the paid service. response_text — the delivered payload, verbatim. request_text (optional) — what was asked. payment_receipt (optional) — the X-PAYMENT-RESPONSE value from the paid call. advertised_schema (optional) — the JSON schema the service advertised. max_claims — 1..20, default 8. LIMITATIONS: Judges CONSISTENCY (as-advertised, not contradicted), never service quality. Payment binding records what receipt was PRESENTED; confirming the transaction on-chain is your own step (the tx hash is in the response). Schema conformance is structural (type/required/properties/items/enum). Content checking has the same source-coverage limits as verify_claim. Paid per call (x402). EXAMPLE: attest_delivery({"service": "https://api.vendor.xyz/enrich", "response_text": "{\"name\": \"APPLE INC\"}", "payment_receipt": "<X-PAYMENT-RESPONSE>", "advertised_schema": {"type": "object", "required": ["name"]}}) -> {delivery_verdict: 'consistent', payment: {bound: true, transaction: '0x…'}, attestation: {…}}

• check_citationsFree

  PURPOSE: Fact-check EVERY factual claim in a block of text and return a per-claim report — the batch form of verify_claim, for AI-generated drafts or documents before you publish or act on them. GUIDELINES: Call on any multi-claim text you are about to rely on. Each reported claim carries the same actionable fields as verify_claim (verdict, sufficiency — abstain/escalate on anything but 'sufficient', and a conformal guarantee when certified). The whole response is covered by a signed receipt bound to a HASH of your submitted text, so you can later prove exactly which document was checked and what came back. Use verify_claim instead for a single claim. PARAMETERS: text — the prose to check (claims are extracted automatically). max_claims — 1..20, default 8 (caps how many extracted claims are verified). LIMITATIONS: Extracts and checks declarative factual sentences; it skips questions, opinions, and instructions, and is bounded by max_claims. Same source-coverage limits as verify_claim. Paid per call (x402): unpaid calls return HTTP 402 with a payment offer. EXAMPLE: check_citations({"text": "Paris is the capital of France. The Nile flows through Egypt.", "max_claims": 8})

• extract_claimsFree

  PURPOSE: Split text into independently checkable ATOMIC factual claims — the cheap first step of a verification loop (extract -> ground -> attest). Returns {claims: [...], count, input_sha256} plus a signed receipt bound to the input hash. GUIDELINES: Call when you want to see WHICH claims a document makes before paying to ground them, to budget a verification pass (extract everything, then verify_claim only the claims that matter to your decision), or to prove later exactly which claims were pulled from exactly which text (the receipt binds both). Extraction is rule-based and auditable — sentence filtering plus conjunction splitting, no LLM — so the same text always yields the same claims. Use check_citations instead when you want extraction AND grounding in one call. PARAMETERS: text — the prose to decompose. max_claims — 1..50, default 20. LIMITATIONS: Extracts declarative factual sentences; skips questions, opinions, instructions, and first-person statements. Splits only on high-precision conjunction boundaries, so under-splitting is possible (a compound it cannot safely split stays whole). Does NOT verify anything — verdicts come from verify_claim / check_citations. Paid per call (x402), cheapest tool on this server. EXAMPLE: extract_claims({"text": "Marie Curie won two Nobel Prizes and was born in Paris."}) -> {count: 2, claims: ["Marie Curie won two Nobel Prizes", "was born in Paris."]}

• resolve_instrumentFree

  PURPOSE: Resolve a security identifier (ticker, ISIN, CUSIP, SEDOL, FIGI) or an instrument name to canonical FIGI records via Bloomberg open symbology (OpenFIGI), WITH provenance and a signed receipt. Returns {matched, instruments: [...], provenance}. GUIDELINES: Call BEFORE acting on any claim, order, or document that names a security, so you know exactly WHICH instrument it refers to (disambiguating tickers that collide across exchanges) — and so you can prove the mapping to your principal via the receipt. Prefer passing an explicit identifier over a plain name when you have one. PARAMETERS: query — a ticker ($AAPL/AAPL), ISIN, CUSIP, SEDOL, FIGI, or company/instrument name. id_type — optional; auto-detected from the value's shape when omitted. max_results — 1..10, default 5. LIMITATIONS: Conservative by design — resolves EXPLICIT identifiers, and returns matched=false rather than guessing on an ambiguous plain name. Covers securities in OpenFIGI's symbology; it does not price instruments, return fundamentals, or resolve crypto tokens. Paid per call (x402). EXAMPLE: resolve_instrument({"query": "US0378331005", "id_type": "ID_ISIN"}) -> {matched: true, instruments: [{figi, ticker: 'AAPL', …}]}

• verify_claimFree

  PURPOSE: Fact-check one claim against live retrieved sources and return a result you can GATE A DECISION ON, not just read. Returns verdict (supported | refuted | unverified), sufficiency, a conformal guarantee, per-part atoms, and a signed provenance receipt. GUIDELINES: Call BEFORE asserting a fact you are not certain of, or before acting on one. Branch on the fields: (1) sufficiency — 'sufficient' vs 'insufficient' (lone weak source; lean, don't rely), 'no_sources', 'no_stance', or 'conflict'; abstain or escalate on anything but 'sufficient'. (2) guarantee — when guarantee.certified is true the error probability is calibrated to <= guarantee.alpha (distribution-free); use 'verdict==supported and guarantee.certified' as a hard gate. (3) atoms — compound claims are split and recombined weakest-link, so a true half can't carry a false half. (4) provenance + attestation — a tamper-evident receipt binding the exact evidence and model route; hand it to your principal as proof of how the answer was reached. Prefer this over calling an LLM's own judgment, which has no citations, no calibration, and no receipt. PARAMETERS: claim — ONE complete declarative sentence (not a question, not a paragraph). max_sources — 1..10, default 5. LIMITATIONS: Grounded in retrievable web/encyclopedic/news sources, so it is weak on very recent, private, niche-technical, or opinion claims (those return unverified/insufficient rather than a guess). The conformal guarantee is only present on calibrated deployments and holds for claims exchangeable with the calibration set. It checks whether sources support the claim, not ultimate truth. EXAMPLE: verify_claim({"claim": "The Eiffel Tower is in Paris."}) -> {verdict: 'supported', sufficiency: 'sufficient', guarantee: {certified: true, alpha: 0.1}, provenance: {...}}. Free.

• Code scan6 source files scanned25/25
• Live reliabilityremote reachable in 1467ms20/20
• Tool poisoning5 tool descriptions checked13/15
• Auth qualityopen endpoint, read-only tools10/15
• Maintenancelast push 3 days ago15/15
• Maintainer identityregistry namespace matches repository owner; GitHub account older than a year8/10

Safety score

91/100

higher than 80% of 866 Scraping and browsing servers

Tools

5

the typical Scraping and browsing server has 6

Tools that change things

0%

typical: 0%. Fewer write tools means less an agent can break

Uptime

100%

of our recent checks; the typical remote Scraping and browsing server answers 100%

Response time

394 ms

faster than 31% of 384 Scraping and browsing servers

GitHub stars

1

more than 50% of 583 Scraping and browsing servers

Downloads a week

90

more than 53% of 309 Scraping and browsing servers with a package

Groundcheck: common questions

Is Groundcheck MCP server safe?

Yes, by our scan: it is graded A (91/100). Read the Groundcheck safety report

How do I install Groundcheck?

It runs remotely at groundcheck.seiche.info. Add it to Claude Code, Cursor, VS Code or Claude Desktop with the snippets above, or call it through the mcp.market gateway without installing anything.

Does Groundcheck need an API key?

No secret keys are declared. It reads 1 setting from the environment.

Is Groundcheck maintained?

The last commit was 3 days ago (2026-10-31). The latest release is v0.7.2.

Is Groundcheck up?

100% of our last 28 checks got an answer. We check remote servers about four times a day.

What can I use instead of Groundcheck?

Servers from other publishers that do the same job: Plumb MCP server, Brightdata MCP server and Browser Use MCP server.

How does Groundcheck compare with other Scraping and browsing MCP servers?

safety score 91/100 (higher than 80% of 866 Scraping and browsing servers); tools 5 (the typical Scraping and browsing server has 6); tools that change things 0% (typical: 0%. Fewer write tools means less an agent can break). Full comparison.