Skip to main content
Glama

deckofcards

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?

Beyond the readOnly/openWorld/idempotent annotations, the description discloses critical behavior: SEC+XBRL fast path for company-financial claims, grounded pipeline for everything else, verdict taxonomy, and the important semantic difference between could_not_verify (did not happen) and unsupported (no source exists). This is exactly the kind of non-obvious behavioral context agents need.

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 appropriately detailed and front-loaded with purpose and triggers, then a clearly marked caller warning. It is slightly verbose in the middle ('routed to the right live source, answered with verbatim evidence, then judged'), but every sentence contributes operational value and the structure makes the key caveats easy to find.

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 fully compensates by enumerating possible verdicts, return contents (grounded/structured value + citation + reasoning), and the two failure-ish states with explicit instructions on how they must not be interpreted. It also covers coverage boundaries and the replacement of sequential calls, making it complete for an agent to decide and rely on the tool.

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

Parameters5/5

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

Schema coverage is 100%, but the description adds significant meaning beyond the schema: it explains claim wording implies tolerance, tolerance_pct overrides that, and gives concrete guidance (1–2 for hallucination detection, default capped at 5). This goes far beyond the bare schema descriptions.

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') and a specific verb+resource: natural-language claim verification against authoritative sources. It clearly distinguishes itself from research/browse tools by stating it produces verdicts on factual claims and replaces a multi-step lookup pipeline.

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?

It explicitly says 'Use whenever the agent needs to check whether something a user said is factually correct,' and even differentiates company-financial claims from other factual claims with different routing paths. It doesn't name alternative sibling tools or state when not to use it, but the scope and automated fall-through behavior are clear.

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

All deckofcards 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

Multiple tools have overlapping purposes: ask_pipeworx and ask_pipeworx_beta are functionally identical (beta just has experimental routing), and the Polymarket suite (bet_research, polymarket_arbitrage, polymarket_edges, polymarket_edge_tracker, polymarket_fill_risk, polymarket_kalshi_spread) all revolve around prediction-market signal detection with unclear boundaries. Also ai_visibility_check and scan_competitor_ai_presence overlap heavily.

Naming Consistency2/5

Naming is a mix of verb-first (draw_cards, resolve_entity, discover_tools) and noun-first (entity_profile, new_deck, recent_alerts) styles, with inconsistent prefixes (pipeworx_feedback vs ask_pipeworx) and no unifying convention. Some tools are bare verbs (recall, remember), others are noun phrases (polymarket_edges).

Tool Count2/5

34 tools is excessive for a server named 'deckofcards' — only 3 tools relate to cards. Even as a general-purpose data/research server, 34 is on the high end and includes many near-duplicates (ask_pipeworx variants) and highly specialized tools that could be consolidated.

Completeness3/5

The research side is fairly complete (lookup, grounding, comparison, profiles, claim verification, memory, subscriptions), but the card-deck functionality is minimal (only create, draw, shuffle) and lacks any deck inspection or hand management. The server's scope is unclear, making it hard to assess true coverage.

Resources