Skip to main content
Glama

Here

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?

The description goes well beyond the annotations by explaining key behavioral nuances: the distinction between could_not_verify (error) and unsupported (no source coverage), the verification_error field, the two processing paths, and the return format with verdicts and citations. This aligns with and enriches the openWorldHint and readOnlyHint annotations without contradiction.

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 well-structured: it front-loads purpose with examples, then details processing paths and critical caller guidance. Every sentence provides needed information for a complex tool, though it could be slightly more concise 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 no output schema, the description fully explains return values, verdict categories, error handling, and fallback behavior. It covers both main claim types and gives implementation details like pipeworx:// citations. This makes the tool self-sufficient for an agent to invoke correctly.

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%, with both claim and tolerance_pct already well-described in the input schema. The description adds context about claim handling (e.g., exact percent-delta math for financial claims) but doesn't significantly advance parameter understanding beyond the schema, so it earns the baseline score.

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 purpose: natural-language claim verification against authoritative sources, with explicit example queries. It distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on fact-checking and returning verdicts, and it details the two distinct processing paths (structured SEC EDGAR for company-financial claims, grounded pipeline for other claims).

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 'Use whenever the agent needs to check whether something a user said is factually correct,' providing clear context. It also explains that it replaces 4–6 sequential calls, indicating efficiency. However, it doesn't explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, so it lacks full when-not guidance.

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

All Here 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

A3.9/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Several tools overlap heavily: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research, and suggest_questions all route questions to the same underlying data catalog, making it hard to pick the right one. The Polymarket-related tools (bet_research, polymarket_edges, polymarket_arbitrage, polymarket_fill_risk, polymarket_edge_tracker, polymarket_kalshi_spread) also have overlapping discovery and analysis purposes.

Naming Consistency3/5

Many tools use descriptive snake_case, and the ask_pipeworx family shares a clear prefix, but the set mixes generic memory verbs (remember, recall, forget), brand-prefixed tools (here_*, pipeworx_*), and standalone names like bet_research and scan_dependency. There is no consistent verb_noun pattern across the whole server.

Tool Count2/5

35 tools is heavy for a single MCP server, and a large portion are meta-tools layered over the same 5,752-tool catalog (ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research, discover_tools, suggest_questions). The broad intentional scope explains the count, but the tool surface feels bloated and harder to navigate than it needs to be.

Completeness4/5

The domain is unusually broad—data querying, entity resolution, comparison, monitoring, memory, geolocation, prediction markets, dependency scanning—and the set covers most workflows end to end. Minor gaps exist, like no direct pipeworx:// citation fetcher and no update/list/delete pattern for entity profiles, but the core user journeys are well supported.

Resources