Skip to main content
Glama

Openfda

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. Added

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the readOnly/openWorld/idempotent annotations, the description discloses critical behaviors: could_not_verify means the check failed and must not be treated as evidence, unsupported means no source was found, and results include citations and reasoning. It also explains the internal routing logic and that the tool replaces multiple sequential calls.

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 every segment earns its place: trigger examples, usage rule, dual-path explanation, verdict list, and critical caveats about error states. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and well-structured, though it could be tightened without losing value.

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?

Without an output schema, the description fully covers the return contract: verdicts, actual value with citation, reasoning, and the meaning of every verdict, including error details. It also explains the underlying pipeline and edge cases, giving the agent a complete mental model of what the tool does and when results are trustworthy.

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?

The schema already documents both parameters fully, giving a baseline of 3. The description adds concrete operational guidance: tolerance_pct overrides the tolerance implied by claim wording, is capped at 5 by default, and should be set to 1–2 for hallucination detection. This useful context goes beyond 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 performs natural-language claim verification against authoritative sources, with explicit trigger phrases like 'fact check' and 'verify the claim that…'. It distinguishes a financial fast path from a grounded pipeline, giving the tool a unique, well-scoped purpose among siblings.

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?

It explicitly says 'Use whenever the agent needs to check whether something a user said is factually correct,' and differentiates when to use the SEC fast path versus the grounded pipeline. It lacks explicit alternatives or exclusion guidance, so it doesn't fully score 5, but the context is strong.

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

All Openfda 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
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools have distinct names and purposes, but the large number of meta-tools (e.g., ask_pipeworx variants, deep_research) and overlapping research/scanning tools (entity_profile, compare_entities, recent_changes) could cause confusion. An agent may need to carefully read descriptions to choose correctly.

Naming Consistency3/5

Snake_case is prevalent but not universal. FDA tools are consistently named with 'fda_' prefix, but there are single-word verbs (remember, recall), camelCase is absent, and some tool names are long and descriptive (scan_competitor_ai_presence). The mix of patterns is readable but not highly consistent.

Tool Count3/5

43 tools is high and includes both dedicated tools and meta-tools that can access thousands more. There is redundancy (e.g., FDA data can be retrieved via fda_drug_approvals or ask_pipeworx). The scope is broad, but many tools could be consolidated. Count feels borderline excessive for the apparent purpose.

Completeness4/5

FDA coverage is excellent with tools for approvals, labels, events, recalls, shortages, warning letters, etc. Other domains (financial, betting, npm) are covered by meta-tools, providing breadth. However, dedicated non-FDA tools are sparse, and the server relies heavily on the universal query tools for completeness.

Resources