Skip to main content
Glama

Mesh

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

A5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, but the description goes further by disclosing critical behavioral nuances: the meaning of could_not_verify (check did not happen, not evidence) and its distinction from unsupported, plus the inclusion of verification_error{stage,detail}. This contextualizes the verdict types and prevents misuse.

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 opens with trigger phrases for rapid identification, then logically proceeds through purpose, pathways, return value, and critical caller caveats. Every sentence contributes essential information—no filler. Despite its length, it's tightly structured with clear segmentation (including an 'IMPORTANT for callers' emphasis), maximizing scannability.

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 fully carries the burden of explaining return values: it lists the verdict types, mentions the grounded/structured actual value with citation, and specifies the reasoning component. It also covers error handling (could_not_verify vs. unsupported) and the tool's efficiency advantage, making it complete for a tool of this complexity.

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

Parameters5/5

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

Schema coverage is 100%, but the description adds significant semantic value: claim is illustrated with two concrete examples, and tolerance_pct is explained with its purpose (hallucination detection), range (0.5–50), override behavior, and default cap. This goes well beyond the schema's basic parameter descriptions.

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 explicitly identifies the tool as natural-language claim verification against authoritative sources, with a clear verb ('validate') and resource (claims). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by describing its specific routing logic (SEC EDGAR fast path vs. grounded pipeline) and noting it replaces 4–6 sequential calls, making its unique 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 Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description states 'Use whenever the agent needs to check whether something a user said is factually correct,' providing a direct usage condition. It also explains the two distinct paths (company-financial claims vs. any other factual claim), guiding selection based on claim type, and implies alternatives by noting it replaces multi-step sequential calls.

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

All Mesh 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

A4/5.0
Disambiguation3/5

The three ask_pipeworx variants are a genuine confusion risk — ask_pipeworx_beta is currently described as identical to ask_pipeworx, and ask_pipeworx_grounded differs only in extraction strictness. search_descriptors and resolve_term also overlap heavily (both map a term to MeSH descriptor IDs). The six Polymarket tools are differentiated by rich descriptions but still form a dense cluster where misselection is plausible.

Naming Consistency4/5

Most tools follow a clean verb_qualifier pattern (ask_, bet_, compare_, resolve_, search_, validate_) with the brand as a namespace (ask_pipeworx, pipeworx_trending, polymarket_*). Minor deviations exist: pipeworx_feedback and pipeworx_trending lead with a noun, the memory trio (remember, recall, forget) are bare verbs, and the ask_pipeworx family uses a brand name rather than a resource noun — but the overall pattern stays predictable and readable.

Tool Count2/5

At 34 tools this exceeds the threshold where a set feels heavy, and the bloat is visible: three near-identical ask_pipeworx routers and a six-tool Polymarket suite dominate. Several tools (generate_llms_txt, scan_dependency, bet_research) feel like accreted one-offs rather than part of a coherent surface. The broad platform purpose justifies some breadth, but the count is inflated by redundant variants.

Completeness4/5

The core purpose — universal access to authoritative structured data — is well covered via the router, grounded mode, deep_research, entity/profile/compare/validate wrappers, and discovery tools. The subscription lifecycle (subscribe/unsubscribe/list/alerts) and memory (remember/recall/forget) have no dead ends. Minor gaps exist: non-polymarket prediction-market workflows lack the depth of the Polymarket cluster, and the single-purpose niche tools fit awkwardly, but agents won't hit dead ends.

Resources