Skip to main content
Glama

Jsonschema

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

A4.5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The description goes far beyond the read-only/idempotent annotations by explaining the dual pipeline behavior, the verdict vocabulary, and critical caveats—especially that `could_not_verify` means the check did not happen and carries `verification_error{stage,detail}`, and that it must not be presented as evidence. It also defines `unsupported`, giving the agent essential edge-case understanding.

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 dense and well-structured, opening with the core purpose, then usage, pipeline routing, return format, and ending with two critical caller warnings and a performance note. Every sentence adds information; no filler.

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 specifying the verdict values, the return payload (actual value + citation + reasoning), and explaining ambiguous verdicts like `could_not_verify` and `unsupported` in depth. The schema and annotations cover parameters and safety, so nothing critical is missing.

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: `claim` includes examples and `tolerance_pct` is fully described with range, override behavior, and default. The tool description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema, so the 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 is explicit: natural-language claim verification against authoritative sources, with concrete triggers like "fact check" and "verify the claim that…". It distinguishes the tool from siblings by focusing on verdict-based validation and explicitly notes it replaces a multi-step pipeline.

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 clearly states when to use: "Use whenever the agent needs to check whether something a user said is factually correct." It also differentiates company-financial claims from other factual claims and describes the "grounded pipeline" fallback. However, it does not name specific sibling tools or give explicit when-not-to-use conditions, so it misses the top score.

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

All Jsonschema 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 occupy the same entry-point role (ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, deep_research, discover_tools, suggest_questions), and ask_pipeworx_beta is explicitly identical to ask_pipeworx right now. The Polymarket family is carefully described but still has heavily overlapping discovery/edge surfaces. Only validate_json_schema is unambiguous, and it has no related siblings to clarify its position.

Naming Consistency2/5

Tool names mix verb-first forms (discover_tools, generate_llms_txt, resolve_entity), noun-first forms (entity_profile, pipeworx_feedback), and bare verbs (remember, recall, forget). Prefix conventions are inconsistent—ask_pipeworx, pipeworx_feedback, polymarket_edges, recent_changes—and almost none of the names reflect the server name Jsonschema.

Tool Count1/5

32 tools is already too many, but for a server named Jsonschema only one tool belongs to that domain; the rest form a broad data-research and prediction-market suite. This is an extreme scoping mismatch: the set is simultaneously oversized and almost entirely off-purpose.

Completeness1/5

For a JSON Schema server, the surface is essentially one operation: validate_json_schema. Common schema lifecycle operations—generation, parsing, conversion, ref resolution, linting—are missing, leaving most JSON Schema tasks impossible. The unrelated data-research tools are internally rich, but they do not complete the apparent domain.

Resources