Skip to main content
Glama

Nws

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?

Beyond annotations highlighting read-only/idempotent behavior, the description reveals key behavioral details: the automatic fall-through from structured to grounded pipeline, the specific verdict enum, and the crucial warning that could_not_verify means the check did not happen (not evidence for/against). This adds substantial value and does not contradict annotations.

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 long but well-structured: starts with query examples to signal intent, then explains behavior, return values, and a critical caller warning. Each sentence earns its place, though a minor tightening could improve skim-readability without loss.

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 thoroughly explains return values (verdict categories), evidence citation, and the meaning of error/special cases. It also covers the two execution paths and replacement value. This is complete for a complex tool even with strong annotations.

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 already covers both parameters with descriptions (100% coverage). The description adds meaning by explaining tolerance_pct overrides the implied tolerance, caps at 5 by default, and can be set to 1–2 for hallucination detection. It also provides realistic claim examples for the claim parameter, enhancing schema detail.

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 a specific verb+resource: 'natural-language claim verification against authoritative sources' and explains the two distinct pipelines (SEC EDGAR for company-financial claims, grounded pipeline for others). It distinguishes itself from sibling Q&A tools by focusing on verifying factual claims with explicit verdicts, not just answering questions.

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 states 'Use whenever the agent needs to check whether something a user said is factually correct', and it clarifies the two routing paths based on claim type. It mentions it 'Replaces 4–6 sequential calls', implying when not to use alternative pipelines, but lacks an explicit 'don't use for deep research' exclusion. Still, 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 Nws 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

A3.7/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Many tools have overlapping purposes, e.g., multiple Polymarket analysis tools, several query tools (ask_pipeworx, deep_research, compare_entities, entity_profile) with unclear boundaries. Agents may struggle to choose the correct tool.

Naming Consistency3/5

While most names use snake_case, there is no consistent prefix pattern across subdomains (e.g., 'ask_', 'get_', 'polymarket_', 'pipeworx_'). Some names like 'bet_research' and 'deep_research' follow different conventions within the same domain.

Tool Count2/5

34 tools is excessive for a server named 'Nws' that primarily suggests weather. The set covers many unrelated domains (prediction markets, npm scanning, memory), making the scope unfocused and overloaded.

Completeness3/5

The server has decent coverage for prediction markets and company financials, but weather tools are limited to basic forecasts/alerts, lacking radar, climate, or historical data. Other domains like npm scanning seem tacked on.

Resources