Skip to main content
Glama

dns

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?

Annotations already signal read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior; the description adds critical semantics: the two processing paths, the verdict enum, and the key caveat that could_not_verify means the check did not happen and must not be treated as evidence. It also clarifies unsupported vs could_not_verify.

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 it is front-loaded with purpose and examples, and every sentence carries functional value. The initial list of natural-language phrasings is slightly redundant yet aids NLU triggering.

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 (verdicts, evidence with citation, reasoning), the two execution paths, and the crucial distinction between could_not_verify and unsupported. It also frames the tool as a one-call replacement for multi-step processes, providing complete operational context.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so both the claim and tolerance_pct parameters are already fully documented in the input schema. The description adds no additional parameter-level detail beyond what the schema provides, hence baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

Clearly identifies the tool as natural-language claim verification against authoritative sources, with specific examples of claim phrasing. Distinguishes between the SEC EDGAR/XBRL fast path for financial claims and the grounded pipeline for all other claims, and notes it replaces 4–6 sequential calls.

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 instructs 'Use whenever the agent needs to check whether something a user said is factually correct' and provides guidance on when to expect the structured vs grounded path. It does not name alternative sibling tools or provide when-not-to-use conditions, but the context is clear and useful.

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

All dns 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

A3.8/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

ask_pipeworx and ask_pipeworx_beta are explicitly described as currently identical, creating real ambiguity between two tools. The polymarket cluster (arbitrage, edges, fill_risk, edge_tracker, kalshi_spread, bet_research) has overlapping edge-finding purposes that rely on reading long descriptions to separate, and the DNS tools are so few that an agent cannot tell this is a 'dns' server at all.

Naming Consistency2/5

The set mixes at least four naming conventions: bare verbs (remember, forget, subscribe), verb_noun (dns_lookup, validate_claim, discover_tools), noun phrases (entity_profile, deep_research, recent_alerts), and brand-prefixed families (ask_pipeworx_*, polymarket_*, pipeworx_*). Each cluster is internally consistent, but the overall pattern is incoherent, including stray names like reverse_dns that invert the verb_first convention.

Tool Count2/5

At 34 tools this exceeds the 25+ threshold for a heavy surface, and the count is wildly mismatched to the server's name: only 3 of 34 tools (dns_lookup, dns_lookup_all, reverse_dns) relate to DNS. The remaining 31 tools belong to unrelated domains (data research, prediction markets, memory, subscriptions, npm scanning), making the toolkit feel like a mislabeled grab-bag rather than a scoped server.

Completeness3/5

Judged against the server's stated 'dns' purpose, coverage is thin: read-only lookups only, with no WHOIS, DNSSEC, zone management, or write operations. Judged against the dominant inferred domain (a data-research/prediction-market platform), the surface is quite complete — query, grounded verification, deep research, profiles, comparisons, claim validation, discovery, subscriptions, alerts, and feedback all exist — though there is no tool to directly read a pipeworx:// citation URI.

Resources