Skip to main content
Glama

Myvariant

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, but the description adds valuable behavioral context: the fast path vs grounded pipeline, the crucial distinction between could_not_verify and unsupported (including that could_not_verify must not be treated as evidence), and the verdict set. This goes well beyond the annotations and helps callers interpret results correctly.

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 tightly written, with each sentence serving a distinct purpose: trigger phrases, use case, routing logic, return values, a critical caller warning, and an efficiency note. It is detailed yet compact, and the structure (usage → behavior → return → caveats) is logical and easy to scan.

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?

Given no output schema, the description adequately explains return values (verdict enum, actual value with citation, reasoning) and covers error semantics (could_not_verify vs unsupported). It also addresses the tool's complexity (dual pipeline) and provides enough context for an agent to confidently invoke it without additional lookups.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining that tolerance_pct overrides the tolerance implied by the claim wording, is capped at 5 by default, and is recommended at 1–2 for hallucination detection. It also provides example claims for the 'claim' parameter, enriching the schema's already good 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 clearly states the tool's function: natural-language claim verification with a specific verb ('verify', 'check', 'confirm or refute') and resource ('authoritative sources'). It distinguishes itself from siblings by enumerating trigger phrases and describing the two-path routing (SEC EDGAR for financial claims vs grounded pipeline for others), which no other sibling tool mentions.

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', and it differentiates between claim types (financial vs other). However, it does not mention when not to use it or name specific alternative tools, so it falls just short of a 5.

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

All Myvariant 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

A3.9/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Several clusters have overlapping purposes: ask_pipeworx and ask_pipeworx_beta are explicitly identical, and the five prediction-market tools (bet_research, polymarket_edges, polymarket_arbitrage, polymarket_kalshi_spread, polymarket_fill_risk) all target 'find edge in Polymarket markets' with subtle differences. query and variant both retrieve the same variant annotations, and ai_visibility_check vs scan_competitor_ai_presence are near-duplicates.

Naming Consistency4/5

Most tools follow a consistent verb_noun or domain-prefixed pattern (ask_pipeworx, compare_entities, resolve_entity, polymarket_edges, remember/recall/forget). Minor deviations exist: the bare nouns query, variant, and metadata are less descriptive, and ask_pipeworx_beta uses a suffix instead of a clean verb pattern, but the overall convention is fairly uniform.

Tool Count2/5

34 tools is far too many for a server named 'Myvariant' whose stated domain is genetic variant annotations. The set is a grab-bag spanning genetic data, Pipeworx query routing, Polymarket betting, memory persistence, subscriptions, AI visibility, and npm dependency scanning. Most tools are unrelated to the server's apparent purpose, making the count feel bloated and incoherent.

Completeness3/5

Individual clusters are reasonably complete: variants have search/get/metadata, memory has remember/recall/forget, and subscriptions have subscribe/list/unsubscribe/alerts. However, as a Myvariant server the surface is massively over-scoped yet oddly missing any batch-variant or annotation-source-specific lookup, and the sprawling multi-domain design makes 'complete' hard to meaningfully assess.

Resources