Skip to main content
Glama

Opencitations

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?

Annotations already declare readOnly/openWorld/idempotent, but the description adds crucial behavioral details: meaning of could_not_verify vs. unsupported, presence of verification_error, routing logic between structured and grounded pipelines, and that it returns a verdict with citation. This is valuable beyond annotation hints.

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 a dense paragraph with multiple clauses, but each part contributes: query examples, usage, pipeline routing, return values, and error semantics. It is longer than ideal but well-structured and free of redundancy.

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 no output schema, the description fully explains return values (verdict enum, value, citation, reasoning) and error semantics. It covers scope, edge cases, and integration (replaces sequential calls), leaving no significant gaps for evaluation.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema coverage is 100% with clear descriptions for both parameters, so baseline is 3. The description adds minor context like 'exact percent-delta math' and natural-language phrasing but doesn't introduce parameter semantics not already in the 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 states the tool's purpose: natural-language claim verification against authoritative sources. It gives specific verb 'verify' and resource 'claim', plus example query phrases, and distinguishes it from other tools by focusing on fact-checking with verdict output.

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?

Explicitly says 'Use whenever the agent needs to check whether something a user said is factually correct.' It also differentiates handling of company-financial claims vs. other claims, effectively guiding when to use this tool vs. alternatives like deep_research or ask_pipeworx_grounded.

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

All Opencitations 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

Multiple tools have unclear boundaries: ask_pipeworx and ask_pipeworx_beta are described as currently identical, and citation vs citations differ only by pluralization while actually accepting different ID types (OCI vs DOI). The server is named Opencitations but 31 of 37 tools serve unrelated purposes, so an agent cannot infer what the set is for without reading very long descriptions.

Naming Consistency3/5

All names are snake_case and family prefixes (polymarket_*, ask_pipeworx_*, pipeworx_*) give some predictability. However, conventions are mixed: bare resource nouns (citation, citations, references, metadata) coexist with verb_noun tools (resolve_entity, validate_claim) and noun phrases (recent_changes, entity_profile, deep_research), so there is no single pattern that lets an agent predict tool names.

Tool Count2/5

37 tools is well past the 25+ threshold for a heavy set, and most are redundant with the server's own router tools — ask_pipeworx already reaches 5,759 underlying tools, making many direct tools overlapping conveniences. The scope also wildly overshoots the server name: only 6 of 37 tools serve the Opencitations citation-graph domain.

Completeness3/5

For the named OpenCitations domain, the core citation-graph read operations exist (metadata, incoming citations, outgoing references, counts, OCI record lookup), but there is no paper/DOI discovery or search tool — an agent must already possess a DOI, a dead end for title/author queries. The broader accidental domain (data routing, company research, prediction markets, monitoring) is covered unusually well, but that does not serve the server's stated purpose.

Resources