Skip to main content
Glama

F1

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

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond annotations (readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, non-destructive), the description discloses detailed behavioral traits: return verdict types, the meaning of could_not_verify (check did not happen, includes verification_error, not evidence), unsupported (no source), and the tolerance_pct override with default cap. This is rich context not available in the annotations.

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 lengthy but every sentence contributes: query examples, pipeline routing, verdict semantics, error handling, and performance benefits. It is front-loaded with the trigger phrases and clear opening, making it easy to scan despite the length.

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?

The description is extremely complete for a complex tool with no output schema. It covers return values (verdict, actual value, citation, reasoning), error semantics (could_not_verify vs unsupported), pipeline routing, and performance characteristics. The annotation coverage (readOnly, openWorld, idempotent) plus this rich description leaves minimal ambiguity.

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 description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by providing example claims and explaining tolerance_pct usage (set 1–2 for hallucination detection, default implied by wording capped at 5), which goes beyond the schema's syntax-level description.

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 it performs natural-language claim verification against authoritative sources, with specific verb 'verify' and resource 'claim'. It distinguishes itself from siblings by mentioning the SEC EDGAR/XBRL structured path for company financials and a grounded pipeline for other claims, and explicitly 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?

Provides explicit guidance: 'Use whenever the agent needs to check whether something a user said is factually correct.' It also distinguishes company-financial claims from other factual claims, explaining the routing logic. It doesn't name specific alternatives or say when NOT to use it, but the 'use whenever' is a strong contextual signal.

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

All F1 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
Disambiguation3/5

Most tools have detailed 'use when' guidance and the polymarket/entity clusters are distinguishable, but ask_pipeworx and ask_pipeworx_beta are currently identical, and ask_pipeworx/ask_pipeworx_grounded/deep_research sit close together. Many other tools (ai_visibility_check vs scan_competitor_ai_presence, bet_research vs polymarket_edges) require careful reading to keep separate.

Naming Consistency3/5

Consistent snake_case and recognizable subfamilies (ask_pipeworx*, polymarket_*, get_*) keep names readable. However the overall set mixes verb_noun (get_schedule, resolve_entity), bare verbs (remember, forget), noun phrases (recent_alerts, pipeworx_trending), and compound noun names (bet_research, polymarket_fill_risk), so there is no single predictable convention.

Tool Count2/5

35 tools is well over the 25+ threshold and spans many unrelated concerns: F1 data, universal data lookup, prediction markets, subscriptions, memory, npm scanning, and AI visibility. While a broad data platform can justify a large surface, the mix of one-off and meta tools makes this feel bloated rather than well-scoped.

Completeness2/5

For a server named F1 the surface is thin: it covers schedule, driver profiles, race results, and driver standings but lacks constructor standings, qualifying, team/circuit data, and a driver list. The surrounding Pipeworx tools provide depth in other domains, but they do not fill the F1-specific gaps.

Resources