Skip to main content
Glama

Librivox

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

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds rich behavioral nuance: it lists possible verdicts, explains that 'could_not_verify' means verification did not happen and must not be treated as evidence, distinguishes it from 'unsupported', and notes the verification_error field. This goes well beyond the annotation baseline.

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 long but deliberately structured: it opens with query phrasings, then explains routing, return values, and a critical caller warning. Every sentence earns its place, and the 'IMPORTANT for callers' section isolates the most critical caveat. 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 carries the full burden of conveying return semantics—and it does so thoroughly. It enumerates all six verdicts, explains the distinction between 'could_not_verify' and 'unsupported', describes the citation format, and notes the two internal pipelines. The description is complete enough for an agent to invoke and interpret results 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 description coverage is 100%, and both parameters (claim and tolerance_pct) are already well documented in the input schema with examples and semantics. The main description adds marginal context by mentioning 'exact percent-delta math' but does not materially extend the parameter understanding beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 function: natural-language claim verification against authoritative sources, with explicit query phrasings and an unambiguous verb ('verify'). It distinguishes itself from siblings by detailing the structured SEC EDGAR/XBRL fast path for company-financial claims versus the grounded pipeline for all other claims, making its scope precise.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

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' and further guides on the two routing paths (financial vs. other claims). It even notes that the tool replaces 4–6 sequential calls, which frames when to prefer it over a multi-step alternative. No exclusions are stated, but the context is clear.

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

All Librivox 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

The set mixes several unrelated domains (LibriVox, Pipeworx data lookup, Polymarket betting, memory, subscriptions), and within those domains there is heavy overlap: ask_pipeworx/ask_pipeworx_beta/ask_pipeworx_grounded/deep_research all route to the same 5,798 tools, and polymarket_edges/polymarket_arbitrage/polymarket_edge_tracker/polymarket_fill_risk/bet_research all scan prediction-market opportunities. An agent can easily pick the wrong tool when the same question fits several of them.

Naming Consistency3/5

Names are mostly lowercase snake_case, but the patterns are inconsistent across domains: some are verb-first (ask_pipeworx, compare_entities, generate_llms_txt), some are noun-first (audiobook, tracks, polymarket_edges), and pluralization varies (audiobook vs audiobooks, authors vs tracks). The Pipeworx family is internally consistent, but the overall set has no unified convention.

Tool Count2/5

35 tools is heavy for a server named Librivox, and only 4 of them (audiobook, audiobooks, authors, tracks) actually relate to LibriVox. The remaining ~31 tools (Pipeworx, Polymarket, memory, subscriptions, AI visibility) make the count far exceed what the server name and apparent purpose suggest.

Completeness2/5

For a LibriVox-focused server, the tool surface is thin: search and fetch audiobooks, search authors, and list tracks, but no browse by genre, no reader/search-by-reader, no language filter, no author detail endpoint. The Pipeworx side is quite comprehensive, but it does not make up for the gap relative to the server's stated identity.

Resources