Skip to main content
Glama

Microsoft Onenote

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?

The description adds significant behavioral context beyond the annotations: it explains the distinction between 'could_not_verify' and 'unsupported', reveals the error structure (verification_error{stage,detail}), and details the automatic routing logic to different data sources. This gives the agent crucial caveats about how to interpret results. The annotations declare readOnly/openWorld/idempotent, which align with the description; no contradiction.

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 longer than average but each sentence provides substantial value: trigger phrases, routing logic, verdict definitions, error implications, and replacement benefit. No filler. It could be tightened slightly, but the detail is justified for a tool with nuanced behavior.

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 covers return values (verdict types, value with citation, reasoning) and error semantics. It explains the two data-processing paths and when each applies. For a complex tool with only 2 params, this is a very complete description that leaves little ambiguity for the agent.

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% and both parameters are described in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful extra guidance for tolerance_pct, explaining that it can override the wording-implied tolerance and recommend a 1–2 range for hallucination detection. This enriches the parameter's semantics beyond the schema description.

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 states a specific verb ('validate', 'fact check', 'verify') with a clear resource (natural-language claims against authoritative sources). It distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly covering the claim-verification use case and contrasting with multi-step alternative pipelines (SEC EDGAR fast path vs grounded pipeline). The trigger phrases and verdict terms make 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 gives explicit when-to-use context: 'Use whenever the agent needs to check whether something a user said is factually correct.' It also implies when not to use (when not a factual claim) and describes the underlying pipeline replacement to show why this tool is preferred over sequential calls. It lacks a named sibling alternative, but the guidance 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 Microsoft Onenote 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 are genuinely easy to confuse: ask_pipeworx and ask_pipeworx_beta are explicitly described as currently identical, and the five polymarket_* tools overlap significantly in purpose. There are also wrapper-like pairs such as ai_visibility_check vs. scan_competitor_ai_presence and entity_profile vs. recent_changes vs. compare_entities that require reading long descriptions to disambiguate.

Naming Consistency3/5

The names are mostly lowercase snake_case and readable, but there is no consistent verb_noun pattern: entity_profile and recent_changes are noun phrases, pipeworx_trending and pipeworx_feedback use a prefix, ask_pipeworx_beta is a single-family variant, and scan_competitor_ai_presence uses a different structure from ai_visibility_check. The naming is not chaotic, but it is a mix of conventions.

Tool Count1/5

A server labeled Microsoft Onenote exposes 31 tools, none of which actually relate to OneNote note-taking, notebooks, or pages. Even as a general research/prediction-market server, 31 tools is far above the coherent range, and for the stated product purpose this count is wildly inappropriate.

Completeness1/5

For the server's declared OneNote domain, there is zero coverage: no tools for creating, reading, updating, or deleting notes, pages, sections, or notebooks. The actual tool surface is centered on Pipeworx data lookups, Polymarket arbitrage, and memory helpers, which leaves the apparent note-taking domain completely unrepresented.

Resources