Skip to main content
Glama

Buzzword Density

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

A4.4/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the readOnly/openWorld/idempotent annotations, the description discloses two execution routes, the full verdict set, and crucially explains that could_not_verify means the check did not happen and carries verification_error, warning it must not be treated as evidence. It also clarifies the meaning of unsupported. This is rich, actionable behavioral disclosure with no contradiction to annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is long but front-loaded with trigger examples and core purpose, then flows into pipeline details, verdicts, and a critical caveat. The example list is slightly redundant and the ending 'Replaces 4–6 sequential calls' is more promotional than necessary, yet overall the structure is logical and every section serves a purpose.

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?

With no output schema, the description must convey return values and error semantics, and it does thoroughly: verdict vocabulary, actual value with citation, reasoning, plus the two failure modes (could_not_verify and unsupported). For a tool of this complexity, the description is complete enough for an agent to invoke and interpret results correctly.

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% with detailed descriptions for both claim and tolerance_pct. The description adds context about exact percent-delta math and tolerance being implied by wording, but it does not directly elaborate parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 defines the tool as natural-language claim verification against authoritative sources, with specific example query forms. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by laying out two concrete pipelines (SEC EDGAR/XBRL for company-financial claims and a grounded pipeline for everything else) and by noting it replaces 4–6 sequential calls. This gives a specific verb+resource and clear scope that separates it from generic ask/research tools.

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 explicitly states 'Use whenever the agent needs to check whether something a user said is factually correct,' providing a direct trigger condition. It also segments claim types to clarify which internal path applies. However, it does not explicitly name sibling tools as alternatives or provide exclusions, so it falls short of a 5.

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

All Buzzword Density 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

Many tools have overlapping purposes, such as multiple ask_pipeworx variants and several prediction market tools. This causes ambiguity for agents trying to select the right tool.

Naming Consistency2/5

Tool names mix verb_noun patterns (ask_pipeworx, forget) with noun phrases (entity_profile) and inconsistent prefixes (pipeworx_, polymarket_). No consistent naming convention.

Tool Count2/5

With 32 tools, the set is excessive for a server named 'Buzzword Density' and includes many redundant or overlapping tools. A more focused set of 10-15 would be more coherent.

Completeness4/5

The tool set covers a wide range of data sources and operations (retrieval, comparison, monitoring, memory), missing only minor lifecycle operations like updating stored data.

Resources