Skip to main content
Glama

Hackertarget

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 readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive annotations, the description discloses crucial behavioral details: the full verdict set, the distinction between could_not_verify (check did not happen) and unsupported (no source exists), the presence of verification_error with stage/detail, the use of verbatim evidence with pipeworx:// citations, and the explicit instruction not to treat could_not_verify as evidence. This goes far beyond the annotations and materially guides caller 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 information-rich, with trigger phrases front-loaded and structure that leads from 'what' to 'how' to 'caller warnings.' It is longer than average, but every clause contributes; the only minor redundancy is describing the grounded pipeline twice ('routed to the right live source, answered with verbatim evidence' vs. later 'grounded or structured actual value with pipeworx:// citation'). Overall it earns its length.

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 there is no output schema, the description fully compensates by enumerating the return verdicts, the evidence format (value + citation), and error semantics. It explains the two routing paths, the tolerance behavior, and the critical cannot-be-misused could_not_verify distinction. The description is complete enough for an agent to invoke the tool correctly and interpret its results without additional context.

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?

Although the input schema already covers 100% of parameters, the description adds meaningful semantics. For claim, it gives concrete example phrasings. For tolerance_pct, it explains the default is implied by wording and capped at 5, and explicitly recommends 1–2 for hallucination detection. This directly enhances parameter understanding and effective usage beyond the schema field descriptions.

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 natural-language trigger phrases ('Is it true that…', 'fact check') and uses a specific verb+resource framing: verifying factual claims against authoritative sources. It clearly distinguishes this tool from sibling tools by outlining the two internal pipelines (SEC EDGAR for company financials, grounded pipeline for everything else) and by stating it replaces a 4–6 call sequence, making its unique purpose unmistakable.

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 the tool: 'Use whenever the agent needs to check whether something a user said is factually correct.' It provides a clear scope (company-financial vs. any other factual claim) and cautions about could_not_verify. However, it does not name alternative sibling tools (e.g., ask_pipeworx_grounded) for when this tool should NOT be used, so the exclusion conditions remain implicit.

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

All Hackertarget 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

C2.6/5.0
Disambiguation3/5

Tools like ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research, and entity_profile have overlapping purposes, causing potential confusion. However, their descriptions provide some differentiation, so an agent can usually pick the right one with careful reading.

Naming Consistency2/5

Naming is highly inconsistent: mixes verb_noun (ask_pipeworx), noun_verb (reverse_dns), single-word (geoip), and compound phrases (generate_llms_txt). No clear pattern, making it hard for an agent to predict tool names.

Tool Count2/5

44 tools is overwhelmingly high for a single server. The set mixes unrelated domains (network tools, data APIs, memory, prediction markets), suggesting it's a grab bag rather than a focused toolkit.

Completeness2/5

The server lacks a coherent domain, so evaluating completeness is difficult. There are many lookup tools but few for updates or deletes (except memory). The HackerTarget subset is sparse, and the overall surface feels incomplete for any single purpose.

Resources