Skip to main content
Glama

Goproxy

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

A4.4/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare read-only, open-world, idempotent, and non-destructive, but the description adds substantial context: the distinction between could_not_verify (check did not happen, carrying verification_error) and unsupported (no source found), the warning not to treat could_not_verify as evidence, and the source routing details. This goes well beyond the structured 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 relatively long but packed with essential information: trigger phrases, purpose, routing, return values, and error-state caveats. The 'IMPORTANT for callers' section is critical for correct usage. Minor redundancy in the list of trigger phrases is acceptable given the overall density.

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 the absence of an output schema, the description thoroughly explains what the tool returns (verdict enum, grounded/structured value, citation, reasoning) and clarifies the meaning and handling of error states. It also addresses the two execution paths, making it complete for the tool's complexity.

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?

The input schema provides 100% coverage for both parameters, with thorough descriptions (including the tolerance_pct semantics and examples). The tool description adds no further parameter-specific detail beyond the claim examples already present in the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 the tool's function: natural-language claim verification against authoritative sources, with explicit trigger phrases ('fact check', 'verify the claim that…'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing solely on claim verification and even contrasts with a multi-step manual pipeline it replaces.

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 says to use it whenever the agent needs to check whether something a user said is factually correct, and provides natural-language examples that signal when to invoke it. It does not explicitly name sibling tools as alternatives, but the internal routing logic (SEC EDGAR vs grounded pipeline) gives context for when it is applicable.

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

All Goproxy 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 tool families overlap heavily: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, and ask_pipeworx_grounded are near-identical entry points, while discover_tools/suggest_questions and entity_profile/compare_entities/recent_changes serve similar discovery/comparison roles. The polymarket_* cluster also has tightly related boundaries that require reading long descriptions to disambiguate, and version-related helper tools (go_mod, module, versions, version_info) add further confusion.

Naming Consistency3/5

Most tools follow a lowercase snake_case verb_noun pattern (list_subscriptions, resolve_entity, validate_claim), but there are notable deviations: bare verbs like remember/recall/forget, noun-only names like go_mod, module, versions, and version_info, and brand-prefixed names like ask_pipeworx and pipeworx_feedback. The naming is readable and generally predictable, yet the mix of conventions keeps it from being highly consistent.

Tool Count2/5

With 35 tools, the surface is heavy for what is ultimately a data-access and research server. Many tools are conveniences or meta-wrappers that could be consolidated (e.g., three ask_pipeworx variants, multiple polymarket scanners, several onboarding/discovery tools). While the breadth is intentional, 35 feels bloated rather than well-scoped.

Completeness4/5

The toolset covers a remarkably broad domain: universal data lookup, grounded fact-checking, entity resolution, company profiles, comparisons, prediction-market analysis, memory, subscriptions, and feedback. Minor gaps exist—subscriptions can be created/cancelled but not updated/paused, and there is no direct resolver for pipeworx:// citation URIs—but these are workable and core workflows have no dead ends.

Resources