Skip to main content
Glama

Osv

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 the annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, etc.), the description discloses critical behavioral nuances: the two verification pipelines, exact percent-delta math for financial claims, and the distinction between could_not_verify (check did not happen) and unsupported (no source covered). This prevents misinterpretation and clearly explains what the tool does internally.

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 information-dense; every sentence contributes to purpose, usage, behavior, or return-value interpretation. It is front-loaded with examples and clearly structured. Although slightly lengthy, the complexity of the tool justifies the length.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description compensates by enumerating possible verdicts (confirmed, refuted, etc.) and explaining the return value (actual value with citation, reasoning). It also covers edge cases and pipeline routing, giving an agent everything needed to invoke and interpret results correctly.

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 description coverage is 100% — both claim and tolerance_pct are well-documented in the schema. The description itself does not add significant parameter-level detail beyond what the schema already provides; it only indirectly alludes to math and behavior. Thus the baseline of 3 applies.

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 immediately defines the tool as natural-language claim verification against authoritative sources, with explicit query examples. It distinguishes the tool from siblings by detailing a dual pathway for company-financial claims (SEC EDGAR + XBRL) versus all other claims (grounded pipeline) and notes it replaces 4-6 sequential calls, making its niche clear.

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?

The description provides an explicit usage trigger: 'Use whenever the agent needs to check whether something a user said is factually correct.' It explains the automatic routing for claim types, gives parameter guidance (e.g., setting tolerance_pct 1–2 for hallucination detection), and instructs callers on how to interpret could_not_verify versus unsupported — turning the response into actionable guidance.

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

All Osv 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
Disambiguation3/5

Several tools have overlapping purposes: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, and ask_pipeworx_grounded are very similar, as are the suite of polymarket_* tools. While descriptions help differentiate, an agent may struggle to choose the correct one without careful reading.

Naming Consistency3/5

All tool names use snake_case, but they mix verb-first patterns (ask_pipeworx, compare_entities, validate_claim) with noun-first patterns (bet_research, entity_profile, pipeworx_feedback). This inconsistency makes it harder to guess tool names by convention.

Tool Count3/5

35 tools is on the high side but not unreasonable for a platform covering vulnerability queries, data retrieval, prediction markets, and utilities. However, the server name 'Osv' suggests a narrow focus, making the large count feel bloated.

Completeness4/5

The tool set covers a wide range of operations: querying data, comparing entities, managing user data, monitoring subscriptions, and even onboarding. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no direct API for updating user profiles), but overall it is well-rounded for its domain.

Resources