Skip to main content
Glama

Fcc

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

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnly, openWorld, etc.), the description discloses critical behavioral details: the verdict taxonomy, the distinction between 'could_not_verify' and 'unsupported', the presence of verification_error, and that evidence is quoted verbatim then judged. This goes well beyond annotations and helps the agent interpret 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.

Conciseness5/5

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

Despite its length, the description is dense with actionable information and every sentence contributes value—from examples to return types to error semantics. It is front-loaded with usage triggers and organized logically, avoiding redundancy.

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 2-parameter tool with no output schema, the description fully compensates by explaining the return verdicts, evidence citation, reasoning, and error states. It also covers the two claim-type routing paths and the single-call replacement benefit, making the tool's behavior predictable.

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?

With 100% schema coverage, the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaningful semantics: it gives examples of claims, explains how tolerance_pct overrides implied thresholds, and notes the default cap of 5%. It also clarifies use cases like hallucination detection, which the schema alone does not convey.

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 a natural-language claim verifier, with explicit verbs like 'fact check' and 'verify the claim that…'. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by covering both structured SEC/XBRL financial claims and a grounded pipeline for all other factual claims, and even 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?

The description explicitly states when to use: 'whenever the agent needs to check whether something a user said is factually correct.' It also describes routing logic for financial vs other claims, but does not explicitly name alternative tools or when not to use it. The 'Replaces 4–6 sequential calls' line implies a contrast with sequential processing but lacks direct alternatives.

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

All Fcc 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

A3.9/5.0
Disambiguation3/5

Several tools cluster around the same core purpose: the three ask_pipeworx variants, the three census reverse-geocoders, and the six Polymarket analysis tools. Descriptions are detailed enough to disambiguate most choices, but ask_pipeworx_beta is currently identical to ask_pipeworx, creating genuine ambiguity. An agent could easily select the wrong tool in these overlapping families.

Naming Consistency3/5

Names mix verb-initial actions (ask_pipeworx, compare_entities, resolve_entity) with noun-initial compound names (census_block, entity_profile, polymarket_edges). The polymarket_* family is internally consistent, but the set as a whole lacks a uniform verb_noun convention. Single-word verbs like remember, recall, and forget further break the pattern.

Tool Count2/5

At 34 tools, this exceeds the 'too many' threshold of 25 and includes clear redundancy: ask_pipeworx_beta duplicates ask_pipeworx, county_for_point is a thin wrapper over the same service as census_area/census_block, and scan_competitor_ai_presence just loops ai_visibility_check. The broad scope does not justify this many tools, and the set would be better split into focused servers.

Completeness4/5

Each sub-domain has solid lifecycle coverage: memory has remember/recall/forget, subscriptions have subscribe/list/unsubscribe/recent_alerts, and company research has resolve_entity/entity_profile/compare_entities/recent_changes. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no direct pipeworx:// citation-fetching tool), but no critical dead ends that would cause agent failures.

Resources