Skip to main content
Glama

httpcat

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

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already mark it read-only, open-world, idempotent, and non-destructive, but the description adds critical semantics: could_not_verify means the check failed and is NOT evidence, unsupported means no source covers it. It also discloses the structured vs. grounded pipeline behavior and the verification_error payload.

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?

Although lengthy, every sentence serves a purpose: trigger examples, routing logic, verdict enum, error semantics, and the benefit of replacing many calls. Front-loaded with user-phrase examples and usage, making it dense yet efficiently scannable.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description fully explains the return structure (verdict list, actual value with citation, and reasoning) as well as edge cases (could_not_verify, unsupported). It covers routing, error handling, and caller guidance, making it complete 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.

Parameters5/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% (claim, tolerance_pct), but the description enriches both parameters: claim gets concrete examples, and tolerance_pct gets guidance on overriding implied tolerance, including a specific 1–2 range for hallucination detection and default cap of 5. This is meaningful value beyond the schema.

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?

Description clearly states the tool performs natural-language claim verification against authoritative sources, with examples of trigger phrases. It distinguishes itself by explaining the two routing paths (SEC EDGAR for company financials, grounded pipeline for other facts) and the verdict list, making it unique among siblings.

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?

Explicitly says 'Use whenever the agent needs to check whether something a user said is factually correct' and clarifies routing for both company-financial and other claims. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use cases, but the scope is clearly defined.

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

All httpcat 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

A3.5/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Several tools have overlapping or near-identical purposes, e.g., ask_pipeworx and ask_pipeworx_beta are explicitly described as currently equivalent, and polymarket_arbitrage, polymarket_edges, and bet_research all target prediction-market opportunities. Descriptions help somewhat, but boundaries remain fuzzy for agents.

Naming Consistency2/5

Tool names follow no consistent convention: some are verb-first (get_status_cat, remember), others are noun phrases (entity_profile, deep_research), and many use domain prefixes (ask_pipeworx, polymarket_*, pipeworx_feedback). While snake_case is maintained throughout, the structural pattern is mixed and unpredictable.

Tool Count2/5

At 33 tools, the server is well beyond the typical well-scoped range (3-15). The count is inflated by multiple overlapping meta-tools and unrelated utility groups (HTTP cats, Pipeworx research, prediction markets, memory, subscriptions), making the set feel bloated rather than focused.

Completeness2/5

The server name 'httpcat' implies HTTP status-cat functionality, but only 2 of 33 tools serve that purpose, leaving the named domain largely uncovered. As a general-purpose data server, the collection still has gaps (e.g., no direct trading, no general web search) and appears to be a random assortment of features rather than a coherent product.

Resources