Skip to main content
Glama

Dummyjson

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

A4.4/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The description goes far beyond the readOnly/OpenWorld/idempotent annotations by detailing the verdict taxonomy (confirmed, refuted, etc.), clarifying that could_not_verify means the check did not happen and must not be treated as evidence, and explaining the unsupported case. It also reveals internal routing and tolerance behavior, providing essential context for interpreting results safely.

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: it starts with trigger phrases, then states the core purpose, explains the two execution paths, describes the return value, and finishes with important caller warnings. While the list of example phrasings could be slightly trimmed, every section contributes meaningful information, and the front-loading is effective.

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 takes on the burden of explaining the return value (verdict, grounded/structured value with citation, reasoning) and does so thoroughly. It also covers error semantics (could_not_verify), unsupported meaning, and the fast-path/grounded routing, making it 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.

Parameters3/5

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

The input schema already provides 100% coverage with rich descriptions for both claim and tolerance_pct, including examples and default behavior. The tool description does not add parameter-specific details beyond what the schema states, so the baseline of 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?

The description clearly identifies the tool as natural-language claim verification, with trigger phrases like 'fact check' and 'verify the claim that...'. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by explicitly stating it replaces 4–6 sequential calls (NL parsing → entity resolution → data lookup → comparison). It also describes the two distinct processing paths (financial claims via SEC EDGAR/XBRL, other claims via grounded pipeline), making the scope concrete.

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 gives explicit usage context: 'Use whenever the agent needs to check whether something a user said is factually correct.' It also provides nuanced guidance on routing and warns about could_not_verify not being evidence, which is critical for correct invocation. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state conditions where this tool should not be used, so it falls short of a 5.

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

All Dummyjson 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

A3.6/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Many tools have overlapping purposes, e.g., multiple tools for data retrieval (ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research, entity_profile) that differ only in nuance, and the inclusion of both DummyJSON and Pipeworx tools creates confusion about which domain to use for what. Agents will struggle to select the correct tool.

Naming Consistency2/5

Naming conventions are mixed: Pipeworx tools use diverse patterns (verb_noun like 'validate_claim', noun like 'entity_profile', verb like 'forget'), while DummyJSON tools use simple nouns (posts, comments). No consistent pattern across the set.

Tool Count2/5

43 tools is excessive for a server named 'Dummyjson'. The majority are Pipeworx tools unrelated to fake data, making the set feel bloated and unfocused. The count is too large for the apparent scope.

Completeness3/5

For a fake data API, the set is incomplete: it only provides read operations (fetch, search) with no create, update, or delete capabilities. However, for the Pipeworx portion, the read coverage is extensive, so it's not severely lacking overall.

Resources