Skip to main content
Glama

diceuear

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

A4.4/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The description goes well beyond the readOnly/openWorld/idempotent annotations by explaining important behavioral nuances: the meaning of 'could_not_verify' (check did not happen, not evidence), 'unsupported', the two distinct processing pipelines, and the citation format. This is critical context for correct interpretation of results.

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 dense but well-organized, starting with trigger phrases, then usage, then output, then critical caveats. It is slightly long but each section adds value. The front-loaded structure aids quick comprehension.

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?

For a tool with two routes, six possible verdicts, and important edge cases, the description fully covers return values, the meaning of ambiguous statuses, and the distinction between 'could_not_verify' and 'unsupported'. This is complete enough for an agent to invoke and interpret correctly.

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 documents both parameters (claim and tolerance_pct) with examples and clear descriptions (100% coverage). The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 numerous trigger phrases and distinguishes the tool's scope by delineating two execution paths (financial vs. other claims), making its purpose unambiguous and separate from generic query 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?

It explicitly says 'Use whenever the agent needs to check whether something a user said is factually correct' and describes routing logic for different claim types. However, it does not explicitly mention when NOT to use the tool or name alternative sibling tools, though the trigger phrases imply the use case clearly.

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

All diceuear 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

A4.1/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Tools have mostly clear distinctions: ask_pipeworx variants differ by grounding/evidence guarantees, and meta-tools (discover_tools, suggest_questions) serve onboarding. However, ask_pipeworx_beta currently matches ask_pipeworx exactly, creating transient ambiguity, and deep_research vs ask_pipeworx overlap in routing capability though with different scopes.

Naming Consistency4/5

All tools use snake_case and most follow verb-first naming (ask_pipeworx, compare_entities, generate_avatar, subscribe). A few are descriptive nouns (recent_alerts, recent_changes, pipeworx_trending) but still readable and predictable. No mixed conventions; overall consistent style.

Tool Count2/5

33 tools is excessive for a single server, and many are auxiliary (avatar generation, memory, feedback) that do not serve the core data-access purpose. The primary question-answering capability is centralized in a few routers, making many separate tools feel redundant or unrelated, which dilutes navigability.

Completeness4/5

The core domain of structured data access is well covered with routing, grounded answering, deep research, entity profiles, comparisons, and claim validation. Subscription lifecycle (subscribe/unsubscribe/alerts) and memory (remember/recall/forget) round out the surface. Minor gaps like lack of direct tool invocation outside the router are covered by discover_tools, and no critical dead ends exist for typical queries.

Resources