Skip to main content
Glama

Govcon Intel

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

A4.5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent, but the description adds substantial behavioral context: the SEC EDGAR/XBRL fast path vs. the grounded pipeline, the precise meaning of could_not_verify (not evidence) vs. unsupported, the percent-delta grading, and the inclusion of pipeworx:// citations. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

The description is dense but well-organized: front-loaded trigger phrases, then purpose, usage, internal routing, return values, and caveats. Every sentence contributes unique information, and the structure makes it easy to scan.

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?

With no output schema, the description fully explains the return shape (verdict + actual value + citation + reasoning), the nuanced error semantics (could_not_verify vs. unsupported), and the internal routing logic. This is complete enough for correct invocation and interpretation of results.

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 the schema descriptions are already detailed (claim examples, tolerance_pct range and default cap). The main description adds only contextual mentions like 'exact percent-delta math' without introducing new parameter-level guidance, so it stays at the baseline for high coverage.

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 concrete trigger phrases and clearly defines the tool as 'natural-language claim verification against authoritative sources'. It uses a specific verb-resource pair ('verify claims') and distinguishes itself from generic Q&A or research tools by describing the verdict-based output and the structured vs. grounded pipeline.

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?

It explicitly says 'Use whenever the agent needs to check whether something a user said is factually correct' and clarifies the two kinds of claims (financial vs. other) with different routing. It also notes that it 'replaces 4–6 sequential calls', implying a preference over a multi-tool workflow. However, it does not explicitly name sibling tools as alternatives or state when not to use it.

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

All Govcon Intel 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

A4.1/5.0
Disambiguation3/5

Several tools have overlapping purposes (e.g., ai_visibility_check and scan_competitor_ai_presence; ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_grounded, and deep_research). However, detailed descriptions and specific use cases help agents distinguish between them in most cases.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tools use snake_case naming consistently, e.g., ask_pipeworx, compare_entities, govcon_agency_landscape. The pattern is uniform across the entire set.

Tool Count4/5

With 33 tools, the set is slightly over the typical well-scoped range. While many tools serve distinct purposes, some seem redundant (e.g., memory tools, multiple research tools), making the count feel a bit heavy.

Completeness3/5

The tool surface covers a broad range of research and intelligence domains but lacks actionable tools for core government contracting tasks like submitting bids or tracking contract performance. Several obvious operations (e.g., user profile management, submission tools) are missing.

Resources