Skip to main content
Glama

Greynoise

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?

Annotations already declare readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, and non-destructive, but the description adds substantial details: return verdict values, the critical distinction between could_not_verify (not evidence) and unsupported, verification_error details, and the routing logic. This goes well beyond annotation fields and clarifies non-obvious behavior.

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 dense and front-loaded with example phrases, then flows into purpose, pipelines, return values, and error semantics. Every sentence carries valuable information, but it is somewhat verbose due to the detailed verdict explanation and pipeline routing, which is justified given the tool's complexity.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must explain return values, which it does thoroughly with verdict list, actual value, citation, and reasoning. It also covers error cases and the performance benefit ('Replaces 4–6 sequential calls'), making it complete for a complex tool with no structured output schema.

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?

Input schema covers both parameters with descriptions (100% coverage), but the description adds practical context: tolerance_pct overrides implied wording, is capped at 5 by default, and can be set to 1-2 for strict hallucination detection. This enhances the meaning beyond schema descriptions, though the schema itself is already solid.

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 defines the tool as natural-language claim verification with explicit trigger phrases ('fact check', 'verify the claim that…') and specific scope (factual accuracy). It distinguishes from sibling tools by describing two distinct verification paths (SEC EDGAR for company-financial claims, grounded pipeline for others), which is a unique resource and behavior.

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 states when to use the tool ('Use whenever the agent needs to check whether something a user said is factually correct') and gives concrete examples of claim types. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or compare to alternatives like ask_pipeworx, so it lacks exclusion guidance.

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

All Greynoise 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
Disambiguation2/5

ask_pipeworx and ask_pipeworx_beta are explicitly identical right now, creating a true duplicate entry point, and the prediction-market cluster (bet_research, polymarket_arbitrage, polymarket_edges, polymarket_kalshi_spread) all detect mispricings with heavily overlapping descriptions. The detailed docs help, but an agent choosing among these will frequently misselect.

Naming Consistency3/5

The set mixes verb-first names (ask_pipeworx, compare_entities, discover_tools, subscribe) with noun-first names (polymarket_edges, entity_profile, ip_context, recent_changes) and bare verbs (remember, forget) without a unifying convention. Subfamilies are internally consistent (polymarket_*, ask_pipeworx_*, subscribe/unsubscribe), which keeps it readable, but there is no predictable server-wide pattern.

Tool Count2/5

32 tools is well into the too-many band, and several tools duplicate or wrap others: ask_pipeworx_beta is a redundant copy of ask_pipeworx, scan_competitor_ai_presence wraps ai_visibility_check, and bet_research overlaps polymarket_edges/arbitrage. The broad scope justifies a large set, but it would be tighter and clearer around 20-24 tools.

Completeness4/5

For the domain the descriptions actually define (structured-data research, company intelligence, prediction markets, subscriptions, memory), coverage is strong with few dead ends: subscription and memory lifecycles are complete, and research has routing/grounded/deep modes. However, the server is named Greynoise while only ip_context serves that domain, and side tools like generate_llms_txt and scan_dependency sit outside any core workflow.

Resources