Skip to main content
Glama

Ecfr

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

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the annotations (read-only, open-world), the description discloses important behavioral nuances: the meaning of could_not_verify vs unsupported, the presence of verification_error, and the instruction that could_not_verify must not be treated as evidence. This is critical caller-facing context that annotations alone do not provide.

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 detailed but every sentence serves a purpose, covering usage, routing, return values, and error semantics. It is somewhat long but well-organized and front-loaded with query phrases. Slightly more brevity would improve it, but it's not bloated.

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?

Despite having no output schema, the description fully explains the return values (verdict types), the meaning of each verdict, the two processing paths, and how to interpret edge cases. It is complete for a tool of this complexity and provides all necessary operational context.

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%, but the description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining that tolerance_pct overrides the implied tolerance and can be set to 1–2 for hallucination detection. This adds practical guidance not present in the schema, elevating it above the baseline.

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 the tool performs natural-language claim verification, with verbs like "verify", "fact check", and "confirm or refute". It explicitly distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on factual correctness checks and mentions its two routing paths, making its unique purpose unambiguous.

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 to use it whenever the agent needs to check whether something a user said is factually correct, and it differentiates between company-financial and other claims. It also notes it replaces 4–6 sequential calls, implying a more efficient alternative. However, it doesn't explicitly name alternative tools to avoid, so it stops 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 Ecfr 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

A3.7/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Multiple tools have heavily overlapping purposes: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, and ask_pipeworx_grounded are near-duplicates (beta is currently identical), and ai_visibility_check vs scan_competitor_ai_presence plus deep_research vs ask_pipeworx create real selection ambiguity. Some clusters like the memory trio and CFR read tools are distinct, but the overall set is confusing.

Naming Consistency3/5

Most tools use snake_case and many follow a verb_noun pattern (search_regulations, generate_llms_txt, validate_claim), but noun-first names (entity_profile, title_structure, ai_visibility_check) and prefix families (polymarket_*, pipeworx_*) break the pattern. The conventions are mixed but still readable and mostly predictable.

Tool Count2/5

35 tools is heavy for any single server, and the bulk of them (Polymarket betting, memory, AI visibility, npm scanning, subscriptions) are unrelated to the server's 'Ecfr' name, which suggests a narrow regulatory focus. This is a kitchen-sink scope, making the count feel bloated rather than well-scoped.

Completeness3/5

The eCFR-specific surface is thin — list_titles, search_regulations, get_section_text, and title_structure cover basic read/search but lack version history, update tracking, or agency-level navigation. Other mini-domains (data lookup, polymarket, subscriptions, memory) are individually fairly complete, but the absence of a unified purpose leaves clear gaps overall.

Resources