Skip to main content
Glama

Emdb

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?

Annotations already declare readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds significant context: verdict enumeration, fast-path vs grounded pipeline, citation format, and critical error semantics distinguishing could_not_verify (check did not happen) from unsupported (no source). This is beyond the annotations and highly valuable.

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 long but well-structured: trigger phrases first, then usage, routing, output, and edge cases. Every sentence contributes, but it is dense and could be slightly tightened without losing meaning. Front-loaded effectively.

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 no output schema, the description compensates by enumerating verdict values, explaining return content (value + citation), and clarifying error vs unsupported. It also covers routing logic and the efficiency benefit. This is complete for a complex tool.

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 covers both parameters (claim, tolerance_pct) at 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds valuable semantics for tolerance_pct: how it overrides implied tolerance, range, and typical use for hallucination detection. This extra guidance justifies a 4.

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?

Description clearly states the tool does natural-language claim verification with specific verbs like 'fact check' and 'verify the claim', and distinguishes itself by covering both structured SEC EDGAR and grounded pipelines in one call, replacing multiple sequential steps. It is well differentiated from sibling 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?

Provides explicit when-to-use: 'Use whenever the agent needs to check whether something a user said is factually correct' and explains routing for company-financial vs other claims. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it; the absence of exclusions puts it just below a 5.

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

All Emdb 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 tool clusters have overlapping purposes: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, and ask_pipeworx_grounded are near-identical (the beta is explicitly the same right now); five polymarket_* tools all surface opportunity/edge information; entity_profile, compare_entities, and recent_changes all cover company research. The descriptions are detailed, but an agent can easily misselect between similar tools.

Naming Consistency4/5

All tool names use consistent snake_case and are descriptive, with clear prefix patterns for prediction-market tools (polymarket_*) and the router variants (ask_pipeworx_*). Some names are verb-noun while others are noun-phrases, but the convention is uniformly underscore-separated, with no camelCase or other mixing.

Tool Count2/5

33 tools is excessive for a coherent server, and the scope is sprawled across EMDB access, Pipeworx data routing, prediction markets, memory, subscriptions, and miscellaneous utilities. Even though each tool has a defined role, the sheer breadth and number make it feel like several servers' worth of functionality crammed into one.

Completeness2/5

The server's name suggests it should be focused on EMDB, but only two tools (get_map, search_maps) cover that domain — no browsing, filtering, or extended metadata beyond basic fields. Meanwhile, the bulk of the surface is devoted to unrelated Pipeworx/platform features. For the stated purpose, the coverage is severely incomplete.

Resources