Skip to main content
Glama

Cfpb

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

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds substantial behavioral detail beyond that: the exact verdict values, the meaning of the two failure modes (could_not_verify, unsupported), the presence of verification_error with stage/detail, the warning that could_not_verify must not be treated as evidence, and the pipeline mechanics (percent-delta math, grounded sources, verbatim evidence with citations).

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 well-structured: example phrasings first, then usage, then pipeline details, return values, and caller warnings. Every sentence contributes value. It could be slightly tightened (e.g., trimming example lists), but the length is justified by the tool's complexity, and the front-loading is effective.

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 no output schema, the description fully accounts for return values (verdict set, grounded/structured actual value, citation, reasoning), error handling (could_not_verify with verification_error), the unsupported case, and its role as a single-call consolidation of 4–6 steps. It leaves no critical ambiguity for an agent deciding or invoking the tool.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful semantic guidance for both parameters: example claim formats for the claim field and the tolerance_pct's role as an override (with the 1–2 recommendation for hallucination detection and default behavior). This extra context merits a 4.

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 states a specific verb+resource: natural-language claim verification against authoritative sources. It provides multiple example user phrasings, distinguishes its scope (company-financial vs other fact checks), and explicitly frames itself as a replacement for 4–6 sequential calls, differentiating it from 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 Guidelines4/5

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

Explicitly states when to use: 'Use whenever the agent needs to check whether something a user said is factually correct.' It also describes internal routing (SEC EDGAR fast path for financial claims vs grounded pipeline for anything else), giving clear context. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or say when not to use it, so it falls just 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 Cfpb 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
Disambiguation3/5

There are multiple overlapping tools for querying data (ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research, validate_claim, bet_research) that could confuse an agent, though descriptions are detailed enough to distinguish most. Tools like polymarket_edges and polymarket_edge_tracker are closely related, and ai_visibility_check vs scan_competitor_ai_presence overlap.

Naming Consistency2/5

Naming is highly inconsistent: some follow verb_noun (cfpb_search_complaints, resolve_entity, subscribe, recall), but many use varied patterns like adjectives (ai_visibility_check), imperative phrases (ask_pipeworx, scan_competitor_ai_presence), or compound/specialized names (polymarket_arbitrage, generate_llms_txt). No consistent prefix or convention is used across the toolset.

Tool Count2/5

With 36 tools spanning diverse domains (prediction markets, SEC filings, CFPB complaints, AI visibility, npm packages, IPC subscriptions), the server is sprawling and over-scoped. Many tools are specialized niche additions (polymarket_fill_risk, scan_dependency, generate_llms_txt) that expand the count without strong cohesion.

Completeness3/5

The toolset covers core areas well (entity resolution, profile, comparison, recent changes, search, claims verification, subscriptions). However, gaps exist: no update/delete for CFPB complaints (read-only), no direct raw SEC filing retrieval, and some lifecycle operations (e.g., editing subscriptions) are missing.

Resources