Skip to main content
Glama

Adsb

by io.github.pipeworx-io

Validate Claim

validate_claim
Read-onlyIdempotent

"Is it true that…" / "fact check" / "verify the claim that…" / "did X really…" / "was Y actually…" / "confirm or refute" / "true or false" — natural-language claim verification against authoritative sources. Use whenever the agent needs to check whether something a user said is factually correct. Company-financial claims (revenue, net income, cash for public US companies) verify via the structured SEC EDGAR + XBRL fast path with exact percent-delta math; ANY OTHER factual claim (macro statistics, rates, prices, drug data, records) automatically falls through to the grounded pipeline — routed to the right live source, answered with verbatim evidence, then judged. Returns a verdict (confirmed / approximately_correct / refuted / inconclusive / unsupported / could_not_verify), the grounded or structured actual value with pipeworx:// citation, and reasoning. IMPORTANT for callers: could_not_verify means the check did not happen (our LLM or source failed) and carries verification_error{stage,detail} — it is NOT evidence for or against the claim, and must not be shown as one. unsupported means we looked and cover no source for it. Replaces 4–6 sequential calls (NL parsing → entity resolution → data lookup → comparison).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
claimYesNatural-language factual claim, e.g., "Apple's FY2024 revenue was $400 billion" or "Microsoft made about $100B in profit last year".
tolerance_pctNoMax percent deviation still graded approximately_correct (0.5–50). Overrides the tolerance implied by the claim wording — set 1–2 for hallucination detection where any material error must be refuted. Default: implied by wording, capped at 5.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / tolerance_pct
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Max percent deviation still graded approximately_correct (0.5–50). Overrides the tolerance implied by the claim wording — set 1–2 for hallucination detection where any material error must be refuted. Default: implied by wording, capped at 5.",
+  "type": "number"
+}
  2. First observed

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already signal read-only/open-world/idempotent, and the description adds substantial behavioral context beyond them. It discloses the full verdict set (confirmed, approximately_correct, refuted, inconclusive, unsupported, could_not_verify), explains the critical distinction between could_not_verify (check did not happen, not evidence) and unsupported (no source found), and mentions verification_error{stage,detail}. This is rich, non-contradictory context.

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?

The description is longer than average but every sentence earns its place: trigger phrases, routing logic, return contract, and error semantics. It is front-loaded with examples and structured logically from invocation to output. The final sentence about replacing sequential calls is a valuable efficiency note rather than wasteful padding.

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

Completeness5/5

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

Despite no output schema, the description fully explains what the caller receives: a verdict enum, the grounded/structured actual value with a pipeworx:// citation, and reasoning. It covers both the financial and general paths, explains the two non-verdict outcomes (could_not_verify vs. unsupported), and specifies tolerance behavior. This is complete for a tool of this complexity.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%: both claim and tolerance_pct have detailed descriptions. The tool description adds context about percent-delta math and tolerance capping, but it doesn't introduce meaning beyond what the schema already states. The baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema does the heavy lifting and the description does not need to compensate.

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 identifies the tool as natural-language claim verification against authoritative sources, with specific examples of triggering phrases ('Is it true that…', 'fact check', 'verify the claim that…'). It explicitly distinguishes from siblings by describing the company-financial fast path vs. the grounded pipeline for all other claims, and notes it replaces 4–6 sequential calls, making its role unique among the sibling tools.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Provides explicit guidance: 'Use whenever the agent needs to check whether something a user said is factually correct.' It also details routing behavior—company-financial claims use SEC EDGAR+XBRL, while any other factual claim falls through to the grounded pipeline—which helps the caller decide when to invoke this tool versus alternatives like ask_pipeworx_grounded or deep_research.

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

All Adsb toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Several clusters of tools have unclear boundaries: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research, validate_claim, and bet_research all overlap as query/research entry points, and ai_visibility_check vs. scan_competitor_ai_presence plus the six polymarket_* tools create further confusion. An agent would often need deep description reading to pick the right tool.

Naming Consistency2/5

Naming mixes consistent verb_noun forms (get_aircraft, resolve_entity, validate_claim) with noun phrases (aircraft_near, military_aircraft, recent_alerts), adjective-led names (polymarket_arbitrage), and conversational names (ask_pipeworx, suggest_questions). Subgroups like polymarket_* are internally consistent, but overall there is no unified pattern.

Tool Count2/5

35 tools is high for any cohesive server, especially one named 'Adsb' where only 4 tools relate to aircraft tracking. The count is inflated by many overlapping meta-research, prediction-market, memory, and subscription tools, making it feel like several servers were merged into one.

Completeness2/5

For the implied 'Adsb' domain, only live ADSB positioning is covered; airport info, flight schedules, route search, and aviation weather are missing. Even as a general data/betting server, there are gaps like a direct stock-quote tool and unclear lifecycle coverage across the mixed feature set, so agents will likely hit dead ends.

Resources