Skip to main content
Glama

countries

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 readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds significant behavioral detail: it explains the meaning of 'could_not_verify' as a verification failure (with verification_error{stage,detail}) that must not be treated as evidence, and distinguishes 'unsupported' as a coverage gap. It also clarifies the return structure (verdict, actual value, citation, reasoning). This goes well beyond the 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 longer than average but every section earns its place: usage triggers, routing rules, return types, and semantic clarifications. The opening examples ('Is it true that…' / 'fact check') front-load the tool's trigger phrases. It could be tightened slightly, but it is well-organized and not wasteful.

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 there is no output schema, the description thoroughly covers return values (verdict categories, actual value with citation, reasoning) and edge-case semantics (could_not_verify vs. unsupported). It also explains the internal pipeline enough for the agent to understand behavior without needing additional context. 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.

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 100% and the schema already describes both parameters. The description adds value by giving a concrete example of a claim, explaining how tolerance_pct overrides wording-derived tolerance (with a specific use case: 1–2 for hallucination detection), and clarifying the default ('implied by wording, capped at 5'). This enriches the schema without redundancy.

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 the tool's purpose: natural-language claim verification against authoritative sources, with a specific verb ('validate', 'verify') and resource ('claims'). It distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly describing its scope (factual claim checking) and noting it replaces 4–6 sequential calls, which sets it apart from general research or search 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 provides clear when-to-use guidance: 'Use whenever the agent needs to check whether something a user said is factually correct.' It also delineates two distinct routing paths (SEC EDGAR/XBRL for company-financial claims vs. grounded pipeline for all others), giving the agent nuanced context. It doesn't explicitly name alternative tools or state when NOT to use it, but the guidance is strong enough to warrant a 4.

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

All countries 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

B3.4/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

The tool set is a mix of country lookups and many unrelated Pipeworx tools (e.g., prediction markets, memory, subscriptions). While the country-specific tools are distinct, the overall set is a hodgepodge, making it difficult for an agent to determine which tools are relevant to a given task.

Naming Consistency2/5

Naming conventions are mixed: some use verb_noun (search_countries), some noun_verb (countries_by_currency), some single verbs (forget, recall), and some phrases (ai_visibility_check, ask_pipeworx). No consistent pattern is followed.

Tool Count1/5

35 tools is excessive for a server named 'countries'. Only about 6-7 tools are actually related to countries; the rest are unrelated (Pipeworx services, prediction markets, etc.), creating an extreme mismatch between the server name and its content.

Completeness2/5

For the country domain, the tool set includes search and lookups by code/currency/language/region but lacks basic CRUD, comparisons, maps, or sorting. Additionally, the presence of many unrelated tools dilutes completeness for the stated purpose.

Resources