Skip to main content
Glama

Calendly

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

A4.4/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, non-destructive), the description discloses critical behavioral nuances: the distinction between structured and grounded pipelines, and the semantically important difference between 'could_not_verify' (a failure, not evidence) and 'unsupported' (no source exists). This significantly helps callers interpret results and avoid misuse.

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 every paragraph earns its place: natural-language triggers, two-path explanation, return value summary, and an emphasized caller caveat. It is front-loaded with examples and logically organized, though slightly verbose; a more concise version could trim redundancy without losing value.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description bears full responsibility for explaining return values, and it does so thoroughly: verdict list, citation format, reasoning, and the meaning of error states. It also covers how claims are routed and what the tool replaces, making it complete for an agent to invoke and interpret results confidently.

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?

The input schema already provides 100% coverage with detailed descriptions for both parameters, including examples and a range for tolerance_pct. The description adds no additional parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema already conveys, so a baseline of 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 identifies the tool as a natural-language claim verification service, with explicit verbs like 'fact check' and 'verify the claim that…'. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by detailing its dual-path approach (SEC EDGAR/XBRL for company financials and a grounded pipeline for any other factual claim), making its purpose and scope unambiguous.

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 says 'Use whenever the agent needs to check whether something a user said is factually correct,' providing a clear trigger. It also notes it replaces 4–6 sequential calls, but it does not name alternative tools or specify when not to use it, so it misses the 'when-not/alternatives' criterion for a 5.

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

All Calendly 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 research tools overlap heavily: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research, discover_tools, and suggest_questions all route to the same underlying catalog. Similarly, bet_research, polymarket_arbitrage, polymarket_edges, polymarket_edge_tracker, polymarket_fill_risk, and polymarket_kalshi_spread form a dense prediction-market cluster with fuzzy boundaries. The few Calendly tools are distinct, but they are drowned out by duplicative families.

Naming Consistency3/5

Most names use snake_case and a noun-based pattern (e.g. polymarket_edges, entity_profile), and several follow verb_noun (list_event_types, list_scheduled_events, resolve_entity). But there are standalone verbs (forget, recall, subscribe) and inconsistent verb styles (ask_ vs list_ vs scan_), so the pattern is readable but not predictable.

Tool Count2/5

36 tools is far too many for a server ostensibly named Calendly: only 5 tools relate to Calendly events and invitees, while 31 tools belong to an unrelated Pipeworx data-research platform. The count is bloated by a second domain bolted onto the server, making the surface hard to navigate for its apparent purpose.

Completeness2/5

For the Calendly domain implied by the server name, the surface is missing core operations: there is no create/update/cancel/delete event, no cancel or reschedule flow, no invitee management beyond listing, and no event-type creation or editing. The Pipeworx side is broader, but even it has gaps like no bulk data export or direct raw-tool invocation.

Resources