Skip to main content
Glama

Jwt

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

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already mark the tool as read-only, open-world, and idempotent. Beyond that, the description reveals two execution pipelines, the full verdict set, and the critical behavioral distinction between could_not_verify (check failed) and unsupported (no source found). It also notes it replaces multiple sequential calls, adding behavioral context beyond what annotations provide. No contradiction with annotations.

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 but justifiably so. It packs examples, two paths, verdict meanings, a caveat, and the value proposition into one paragraph. It is well-structured and front-loaded with examples, though slightly verbose for a tool description. Every sentence earns its place given the 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?

There is no output schema, so the description must explain return values, and it does: the verdict list, actual value with citation, and reasoning. It also covers edge cases (could_not_verify vs unsupported), mentions the authoritative sources (SEC EDGAR, grounded live sources), and explains the automation benefit. For a tool with this many moving parts, the description is complete.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

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

The input schema provides thorough descriptions for both parameters (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. However, the description enriches understanding by mentioning 'exact percent-delta math' and the role of tolerance in verdicts, which helps the agent understand how tolerance_pct influences grading. It adds meaningful context about the underlying computation without repeating schema details.

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 begins with concrete natural-language examples and explicitly states the tool's function: 'natural-language claim verification against authoritative sources.' It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like ask_pipeworx by focusing on fact-checking with a verdict, and it explains the two routing paths (company-financial vs. other claims), making the 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 provides direct guidance with 'Use whenever the agent needs to check whether something a user said is factually correct.' It also explains the routing logic and gives an important caveat about could_not_verify not being used as evidence, showing when and how to interpret results. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, but the scope is clear enough.

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

All Jwt 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

A3.8/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Multiple tools have unclear boundaries. ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, and deep_research all route natural-language queries to the same underlying catalog, with ask_pipeworx_beta currently documented as identical to ask_pipeworx. The Polymarket family (bet_research, polymarket_edges, polymarket_arbitrage, polymarket_fill_risk) also overlaps in purpose, leaving an agent to parse fine-grained differences before selecting.

Naming Consistency3/5

All tool names use snake_case and several share recognizable prefixes (ask_pipeworx_*, polymarket_*), which helps readability. However, the verb/noun order is inconsistent—compare_entities vs entity_profile, bet_research vs deep_research, scan_competitor_ai_presence vs ai_visibility_check—and bare verbs like remember, forget, and subscribe mix with noun-first names.

Tool Count2/5

32 tools is well above the 25-tool threshold for a coherent set. The bloat is worse because the server is named 'Jwt' but only one tool relates to JWT; the rest cover unrelated domains such as data routing, prediction markets, memory, subscriptions, and npm scanning, so the count is neither scoped to the server's name nor internally cohesive.

Completeness2/5

For a server named 'Jwt', the surface is severely incomplete: only decode_jwt is present, with no sign, verify, encode, or refresh tools, so common JWT workflows dead-end. Even when judged as a general Pipeworx data toolkit, the mismatch between the server name and the actual tool surface creates a significant gap for agents expecting JWT functionality.

Resources