How do I install the Mixelpixx Google Search MCP Server Fact Check skill?

Run npx skillmds@latest add tomevault-io/mixelpixx-google-search-mcp-server-fact-check in your terminal (requires Node.js), paste this page's agent-chat prompt into Claude, Cursor, or any MCP-connected agent, or download the SKILL.md file and copy it into your agent's skills directory.

What does the Mixelpixx Google Search MCP Server Fact Check skill do?

--- It is listed under AI & ML on SkillMD.

Is Mixelpixx Google Search MCP Server Fact Check safe to use?

This skill has not completed SkillMD's automated safety review yet. Independent scanners report: SkillSpector: PASS, Skill Scanner: PASS. SkillMD never runs a skill's scripts for you; review the SKILL.md before installing.

Which AI agents work with Mixelpixx Google Search MCP Server Fact Check?

This skill is tagged as working with Claude Code, Claude.ai, OpenAI Codex. SKILL.md is an open format, so most agents that read a skills directory can load it too.

Is Mixelpixx Google Search MCP Server Fact Check free to use?

Yes. Installing skills from SkillMD is free, and the skill stays under its author's original license.

Who published Mixelpixx Google Search MCP Server Fact Check?

tomevault-io (@tomevault-io) published this skill. Their other Agent Skills are listed on their SkillMD profile.

Mixelpixx Google Search MCP Server Fact Check by tomevault-io

Name: Mixelpixx Google Search MCP Server Fact Check
Author: tomevault-io

File contents

name: fact-check description: Verify claims, statements, or information using multiple authoritative sources argument-hint: [claim to verify]

Fact-Check Workflow

Verify this claim: $ARGUMENTS

Verification Process

Step 1: Understand the Claim

Break down the claim into verifiable components:

What specific facts are being asserted?
What would need to be true for this claim to be accurate?
Are there numbers, dates, or specific details to verify?

Step 2: Search for Primary Sources

Use google_search to find:

Official sources - Government, academic institutions, official documentation
```
query: "[claim keywords] site:gov OR site:edu"
```
Fact-checking sites - Snopes, PolitiFact, FactCheck.org
```
query: "[claim] fact check"
```
News sources - Reuters, AP, established journalism
```
query: "[claim]" with dateRestrict for recency
```

Step 3: Extract and Compare

Use extract_webpage_content on top 3-5 sources with highest authority scores.

Compare:

Do sources agree on the core facts?
Are there important caveats or context missing from the original claim?
What's the original source of the information?

Step 4: Assess Source Quality

Prioritize sources by:

Primary sources (original data, studies, official records)
Academic/peer-reviewed content
Established news organizations
Expert commentary

Be skeptical of:

Single-source claims
Sources with commercial interest
Outdated information
Circular citations (all sources citing each other)

Verdict Format

# Fact Check: [Claim]

## Verdict: [TRUE / MOSTLY TRUE / MIXED / MOSTLY FALSE / FALSE / UNVERIFIABLE]

## Summary
[1-2 sentence summary of findings]

## Evidence

### Supporting Evidence
- [Source]: [What they say] (Authority: X%)
- ...

### Contradicting Evidence
- [Source]: [What they say] (Authority: X%)
- ...

## Important Context
[Any nuance, caveats, or missing context from the original claim]

## Source Quality
- Primary sources consulted: X
- Average source authority: X%
- Source agreement: [High/Medium/Low]

## Confidence Level
[HIGH/MEDIUM/LOW] - [Explanation of confidence]

Red Flags to Note

Claim uses vague language ("studies show", "experts say") without specifics
Numbers that seem too round or dramatic
Claims that align suspiciously well with a particular agenda
Information that can't be traced to an original source

Source: mixelpixx/google-search-mcp-server — distributed by TomeVault.

---name: mixelpixx-google-search-mcp-server-fact-checkdescription: ---------name: fact-checkdescription: Verify claims, statements, or information using multiple authoritative sourcesargument-hint: [claim to verify]---# Fact-Check WorkflowVerify this claim: **$ARGUMENTS**## Verification Process### Step 1: Understand the ClaimBreak down the claim into verifiable components:- What specific facts are being asserted?- What would need to be true for this claim to be accurate?- Are there numbers, dates, or specific details to verify?### Step 2: Search for Primary SourcesUse `google_search` to find:1. **Official sources** - Government, academic institutions, official documentation ``` query: "[claim keywords] site:gov OR site:edu" ```2. **Fact-checking sites** - Snopes, PolitiFact, FactCheck.org ``` query: "[claim] fact check" ```3. **News sources** - Reuters, AP, established journalism ``` query: "[claim]" with dateRestrict for recency ```### Step 3: Extract and CompareUse `extract_webpage_content` on top 3-5 sources with highest authority scores.Compare:- Do sources agree on the core facts?- Are there important caveats or context missing from the original claim?- What's the original source of the information?### Step 4: Assess Source QualityPrioritize sources by:1. Primary sources (original data, studies, official records)2. Academic/peer-reviewed content3. Established news organizations4. Expert commentaryBe skeptical of:- Single-source claims- Sources with commercial interest- Outdated information- Circular citations (all sources citing each other)## Verdict Format```markdown# Fact Check: [Claim]## Verdict: [TRUE / MOSTLY TRUE / MIXED / MOSTLY FALSE / FALSE / UNVERIFIABLE]## Summary[1-2 sentence summary of findings]## Evidence### Supporting Evidence- [Source]: [What they say] (Authority: X%)- ...### Contradicting Evidence- [Source]: [What they say] (Authority: X%)- ...## Important Context[Any nuance, caveats, or missing context from the original claim]## Source Quality- Primary sources consulted: X- Average source authority: X%- Source agreement: [High/Medium/Low]## Confidence Level[HIGH/MEDIUM/LOW] - [Explanation of confidence]```## Red Flags to Note- Claim uses vague language ("studies show", "experts say") without specifics- Numbers that seem too round or dramatic- Claims that align suspiciously well with a particular agenda- Information that can't be traced to an original source---> Source: [mixelpixx/google-search-mcp-server](https://github.com/mixelpixx/google-search-mcp-server) — distributed by [TomeVault](https://tomevault.io).

Frequently asked questions

Mixelpixx Google Search MCP Server Fact Check