Skip to main content
Glama

Entso E

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

A4.5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Provides rich behavioral detail beyond the annotations: distinguishes between structured SEC EDGAR/XBRL path and grounded fallback, enumerates the six verdicts, and warns that could_not_verify means the check did not happen and must not be treated as evidence. This goes far beyond readOnly/opensWorld/idempotent flags and gives essential caller guidance.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Although the description is long, every sentence adds distinct value: trigger phrases, usage scope, routing logic, verdict list, caller warnings, and the efficiency benefit. It is front-loaded with the most important information and avoids filler.

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 complex verification tool with no output schema, the description fully explains the return format (verdict, value, citation, reasoning), the two processing paths, error semantics, and the difference between unsupported and could_not_verify. This gives an agent everything needed to invoke the tool and interpret results 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?

Schema coverage is 100% and already documents both claim and tolerance_pct with examples. The description adds high-level context about percent-delta math and tolerance behavior, but it does not meaningfully extend what the schema already says about the parameters.

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 opens with explicit trigger phrases ("Is it true that…", "fact check", "verify the claim that…") and states the core function: natural-language claim verification against authoritative sources. It clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings by framing it as a structured verification engine that returns a verdict, not just an answer.

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 says 'Use whenever the agent needs to check whether something a user said is factually correct' and contrasts company-financial claims with any other factual claim, routing each to the proper pipeline. It does not name specific sibling tools as alternatives, but it explains that it replaces 4–6 sequential calls, which gives clear usage context.

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

All Entso E 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

B3.1/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Several tools have overlapping or duplicate roles: ask_pipeworx and ask_pipeworx_beta are explicitly identical right now, and deep_research/ask_pipeworx/discover_tools/suggest_questions all serve query routing. The five ENTSO-E tools are distinct but are lost among the unrelated Pipeworx/prediction-market tooling.

Naming Consistency2/5

Naming mixes single verbs (remember, forget, subscribe), noun phrases (actual_load, entity_profile), verb_noun patterns (compare_entities, discover_tools), and brand-prefixed groups (pipeworx_*, polymarket_*). Snake_case is consistent, but the verb style and naming logic vary widely with no discernible overall pattern.

Tool Count2/5

36 tools is too many for a server supposedly focused on ENTSO-E electricity data, especially since only 5 tools serve that domain. Even as a general data-access server, the set is heavy and includes redundant/beta variants (ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded) that inflate the count.

Completeness1/5

The server name 'Entso E' implies electricity-market data, but only 5 of 36 tools cover generation, load, prices, capacity, and cross-border flow. Missing typical ENTSO-E operations like forecasts, balancing, or real-time grid status, while the remaining 31 tools belong to an unrelated data platform — severely incomplete for the advertised purpose.

Resources