Skip to main content
Glama

Mediastack

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 readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description goes far beyond this by explaining the two routing paths, the exact verdict set, the meaning of 'could_not_verify' (with verification_error structure) versus 'unsupported', the percent-delta math, and the inclusion of verbatim evidence and citations. This rich behavioral context is not available in annotations.

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 but well-structured: trigger phrases first, then usage, then internal routing, then output semantics, then crucial caller warnings. Every sentence adds operational value; the warning about 'could_not_verify' is especially important. It is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity and fronts the purpose immediately.

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?

Despite having no output schema, the description fully explains the return payload (verdict, actual value with citation, reasoning) and the error cases. It also covers the two routing paths and how they differ. For a tool with this complexity, the description leaves no significant gaps for an agent to invoke and interpret the result correctly.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so both parameters are documented in the schema. The description adds meaningful context by explaining how tolerance_pct overrides the claim's implied tolerance, the accepted range (0.5–50), and its use in hallucination detection. It also ties the parameter to the percent-delta grading logic, which enhances understanding beyond the raw 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?

The description clearly defines the tool as natural-language claim verification with specific trigger phrases like 'fact check' and 'verify the claim that…'. It states the resource (claims) and the action (validate against authoritative sources), and distinguishes it from siblings by framing it as a single-call replacement for a multi-step verification 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?

The description explicitly says 'Use whenever the agent needs to check whether something a user said is factually correct,' which is a clear usage directive. It also gives internal routing guidance (SEC EDGAR fast path vs. grounded pipeline) and when to set tolerance_pct for hallucination detection. However, it does not explicitly name when-not-to-use alternatives like ask_pipeworx_grounded, so it stops short of full exclusion guidance.

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

All Mediastack 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

A4.1/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Each tool has a detailed description clarifying its precise purpose, and even closely related tools (e.g., ask_pipeworx vs ask_pipeworx_grounded) are clearly differentiated by behavior and use case. No two tools appear to serve the same function.

Naming Consistency3/5

All names use snake_case, but the structural pattern is inconsistent: many follow verb_noun (compare_entities, resolve_entity), while others are noun-based (entity_profile, polymarket_arbitrage) or single verbs (subscribe, remember). This mix reduces predictability.

Tool Count3/5

With 32 tools, the server is quite large for an MCP server. While many tools are justified by the broad domain coverage, the high number can overwhelm agents and increase cognitive load, making it feel somewhat bloated.

Completeness4/5

The tool set covers a wide range of domains (company data, prediction markets, news, memory, subscriptions, etc.), and the generic ask_pipeworx and deep_research tools gateways to thousands of data sources, effectively filling gaps. However, some areas lack dedicated tools (e.g., weather, real estate) beyond the generic query.

Resources