Skip to main content
Glama

Airtable

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. Added

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare read-only, open-world, and non-destructive behavior, but the description adds significant disclosure: it explains the meaning of 'unsupported' (we looked, no source) and the critical warning that 'could_not_verify' means the check did not happen and carries verification_error{stage,detail}. This goes far beyond the annotations and helps callers interpret the tool's limitations.

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 compact for its scope, front-loaded with trigger phrases and a clear use case. Every sentence serves a purpose: it covers triggers, scope, routing, return values, and two edge-case warnings, without redundancy. The organization is logical and easy to scan.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (two params, no output schema), the description fully covers what it does, when to use it, how it routes claims, what verdicts it returns, and what to do with ambiguous outcomes. It even explains how it replaces sequential calls, giving the agent a complete mental model.

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 description coverage is 100%: both 'claim' and 'tolerance_pct' have detailed descriptions in the schema, including the default behavior and hallucination-detection use case. The tool description adds no extra parameter semantics beyond what is already structured.

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 opens with concrete natural-language triggers ('Is it true that…', 'fact check', 'verify the claim that…') and a clear verb+resource: validate claims against authoritative sources. It distinguishes itself by describing a two-track pipeline (SEC EDGAR for financials, grounded pipeline for everything else) and notes it 'Replaces 4–6 sequential calls,' differentiating it from multi-step alternatives.

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?

It explicitly states when to use: 'Use whenever the agent needs to check whether something a user said is factually correct.' It also offers actionable guidance for the two claim types (company-financial vs. other) and warns that 'could_not_verify' should not be shown as evidence, preventing misuse.

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

All Airtable 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

A3.5/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

The Airtable tools are distinct, but the set is dominated by a large Pipeworx research family with multiple near-identical entries (ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded) and several overlapping prediction-market tools (bet_research, polymarket_edges, polymarket_arbitrage). An agent would frequently struggle to pick the right tool among the many data-lookup and research options, especially given the server is supposedly named Airtable.

Naming Consistency2/5

Naming conventions are mixed: some tools use verb_noun snake_case (airtable_create_record, list_subscriptions, resolve_entity), while others use domain-prefixed names (pipeworx_feedback, polymarket_edges) or bare verbs (remember, forget, recall, subscribe). There is no single predictable pattern across the set.

Tool Count2/5

36 tools is heavy for any single server's scope, and the mismatch is worse because the server is named Airtable yet only 5 of 36 tools relate to Airtable. The rest form an unrelated Pipeworx/Polymarket/memory grab-bag, suggesting poor scoping and no clear purpose for the set as a whole.

Completeness2/5

For the stated Airtable domain, the surface is incomplete: records can be created, fetched, and listed, but there is no update_record or delete_record. For the broader Pipeworx/prediction-market domain the coverage is extensive but unfocused, and given the server's name the Airtable gap is glaring.

Resources