Skip to main content
Glama

Google_docs

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

A4.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Even though annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, the description adds crucial behavioral details: the nuanced meaning of 'could_not_verify' (including verification_error) and 'unsupported', the fact that answers include pipeworx:// citations, and the fallback routing logic. This goes well beyond the annotations and clarifies how the tool behaves in failure and edge cases.

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 fairly long but every sentence carries essential information, including examples, path routing, verdict definitions, and error semantics. It is well-structured (definitions, path descriptions, return value summary) and front-loaded with usage signals, though it could be slightly tightened without losing value.

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 the lack of an output schema, the description fully explains the return value (verdict types, actual value with citation, reasoning) and the two special verdicts ('could_not_verify' and 'unsupported') with their distinct meanings. For a tool of this complexity, this is a comprehensively self-contained description that leaves little ambiguity for an agent.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters5/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

While the schema covers both parameters descriptively, the tool description adds practical semantics: example claims for the 'claim' parameter, and detailed guidance for 'tolerance_pct' including how to set it for hallucination detection (1–2) and the default behavior (implied by wording, capped at 5). This enriches the schema meaning significantly.

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 a specific verb (verify/validate) and resource (natural-language factual claims), and distinguishes this tool from siblings by highlighting its specialized claim-verification role. It even describes two distinct processing paths (structured SEC EDGAR vs. grounded pipeline), making the tool's 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 Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description explicitly says 'Use whenever the agent needs to check whether something a user said is factually correct' and provides guidance for when to expect the structured path vs. the fallback grounded path. It also notes that it replaces 4–6 sequential calls, signaling efficiency and preference over composing multiple tools.

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

All Google_docs 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

B3.4/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Several tools are nearly indistinguishable: ask_pipeworx and ask_pipeworx_beta are explicitly identical in behavior, while ask_pipeworx_grounded and deep_research heavily overlap with the same router. The dense Polymarket tool cluster and discovery tools (discover_tools vs suggest_questions) further blur boundaries, though many individual tools do have distinct niches.

Naming Consistency3/5

Names are consistently lowercase snake_case, which helps, but the convention is mixed: some are verb_noun (docs_create, list_subscriptions), some are noun phrases (entity_profile, deep_research, bet_research), and one uses a suffix (ask_pipeworx_beta). It is readable but not a predictable pattern across the set.

Tool Count2/5

37 tools is already above the 25+ threshold, but the bigger problem is that the server is named Google_docs and only 6 of the 37 tools relate to Google Docs. The remaining 31 tools form a broad data-research and prediction-market platform, making the set feel bloated and mislabeled for its apparent purpose.

Completeness2/5

For a Google Docs server, the surface is incomplete: you can create, read, insert, replace, and append text, but there is no delete, no list/search, no formatting control, and no permission handling. The extensive Pipeworx and Polymarket tools cover a different domain entirely, so they do not fill the gaps in the docs workflow.

Resources