Skip to main content
Glama

Deepl

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

A4.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent/openWorld annotations, the description discloses critical behavior: the SEC/XBRL fast path vs grounded fallback, the exact verdict list, the meaning of could_not_verify (not evidence) vs unsupported, and the tolerance override logic. This is far more transparent than annotations alone.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

Though long, every sentence earns its place: trigger examples, routing, return values, error semantics, and usage guidance. The structure is front-loaded with purpose and examples, and the IMPORTANT callout for could_not_verify is clearly separated.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description carries full responsibility for explaining return values. It does this thoroughly: verdict list, actual value with citation, reasoning, and edge cases (could_not_verify, unsupported). This is complete for a complex tool with two distinct pipelines.

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% with both parameters well-documented. The description adds practical guidance on tolerance_pct (set 1–2 for hallucination detection, default capped at 5), which goes beyond the schema's static description and is genuinely useful for invocation.

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 explicitly states the tool's function: natural-language claim verification against authoritative sources, with concrete trigger phrases. It clearly distinguishes from siblings by focusing on fact-checking, and details the two routing paths (SEC/XBRL for company-financial claims vs grounded pipeline for any other claim).

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Provides explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Use whenever the agent needs to check whether something a user said is factually correct.' It also explains this tool replaces 4–6 sequential calls, giving an alternative approach. It further instructs how to interpret could_not_verify vs unsupported, preventing misuse.

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

All Deepl 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

B3.3/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Many tools have overlapping functionality, such as ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, and ask_pipeworx_grounded, which are essentially the same with minor differences. The polymarket_* family also has five tools with similar names and purposes, making it easy to select the wrong one despite detailed descriptions.

Naming Consistency2/5

Tool names mix verb-first patterns (ask, generate, list, remember) with noun-first patterns (entity_profile, polymarket_arbitrage), and include camelCase like ai_visibility_check. This inconsistent naming style makes the set feel arbitrary and harder to navigate.

Tool Count3/5

With 36 tools, the server exceeds the typical well-scoped range of 3-15. While the multi-purpose nature justifies a larger set, the presence of many near-duplicates (beta/grounded variants, multiple polymarket tools) inflates the count without proportional functional gain.

Completeness4/5

The toolset covers a wide array of domains including translation, entity resolution, financial data, prediction markets, memory, subscriptions, and AI visibility. It appears very comprehensive for its intended multi-purpose server, with no obvious major gaps in core capabilities.

Resources