Skip to main content
Glama

Intercom

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?

Beyond the annotations (readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, non-destructive), the description reveals valuable behavioral details: two distinct execution paths, the full verdict set, citation and reasoning in the output, and the crucial nuance that could_not_verify indicates an execution failure rather than evidence for/against the claim. This goes far beyond what annotations convey.

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 front-loaded with natural-language trigger examples ('Is it true that…', 'fact check'), making the tool's purpose immediately recognizable. Every subsequent sentence adds necessary detail: usage guidance, routing logic, verdicts, evidence, the critical could_not_verify caveat, and the efficiency claim. The length is justified by 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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by enumerating all possible verdicts, describing the return bundle (value + citation + reasoning), and explaining the difference between could_not_verify and unsupported. It also covers the two major claim categories and the fallback behavior, making the tool's behavior fully transparent for an agent.

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?

The input schema already provides 100% coverage for both parameters, with clear descriptions and examples for claim and tolerance_pct. The description adds only marginal semantic context, such as 'exact percent-delta math' and the override behavior for tolerance_pct, which are also present in the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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 a natural-language claim verification service, using specific verbs like 'validate', 'check', and 'confirm/refute'. It distinguishes itself from generic Q&A tools by explaining the two routing paths (SEC EDGAR/XBRL for financial claims, grounded pipeline for others) and explicitly notes it replaces 4–6 sequential calls.

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 also provides usage sub-guidance for financial vs. non-financial claims. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when NOT to use this tool in favor of a sibling tool.

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

All Intercom 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

B3.4/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Several tools have heavily overlapping purposes: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, and deep_research all route factual questions to the same underlying catalog with unclear boundaries. Polymarket tools also overlap (bet_research, polymarket_edges, polymarket_arbitrage), and ai_visibility_check vs scan_competitor_ai_presence are nearly the same operation.

Naming Consistency3/5

Most tools follow a readable snake_case verb_noun pattern (ask_pipeworx, entity_profile, resolve_entity, list_subscriptions). However, the set mixes two distinct naming families — ic_* for Intercom tools and pipeworx/* for the rest — and includes ambiguous generic names like remember/recall/forget that don't visually connect to the rest.

Tool Count2/5

36 tools is far more than needed for an Intercom-focused server; the vast majority have nothing to do with Intercom and instead cover a sprawling Pipeworx data-research, prediction-market, and memory/subscription toolkit. The count alone is in the 'too many' range, and the scope mismatch makes it feel even more inflated.

Completeness2/5

For a server named Intercom, the surface is severely incomplete: only read/list/search operations exist for contacts and conversations, with no create, update, delete, send-message, or company-detail operations. The unrelated Pipeworx tools are fairly broad, but they don't compensate for the missing Intercom lifecycle coverage that the server name promises.

Resources