Skip to main content
Glama

Pipedrive

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

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the readOnly/openWorld/idempotent annotations, it explains the meaning of each verdict, particularly that could_not_verify means the check did not happen and carries verification_error, and unsupported means no source exists. It also discloses the dual routing paths and output format.

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 front-loaded with trigger phrases and contains dense, useful information. It is relatively lengthy, with a few pieces (e.g., 'routed to the right live source, answered with verbatim evidence, then judged') that could be condensed, but no wasted sentences.

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 fully specifies the return structure (verdict list, actual value, citation, reasoning, verification_error) and handles edge cases. It explains both claim categories and parameter behavior, making it complete for a 2-param tool.

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

Parameters5/5

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

Although schema descriptions already cover both parameters, the description adds crucial semantics: tolerance_pct overrides the implied wording, default capped at 5, and recommends 1–2 for hallucination detection. It also clarifies what claim inputs look like with examples.

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 states a specific function: natural-language claim verification against authoritative sources, with concrete trigger phrases like 'fact check' and 'verify the claim'. It distinguishes from siblings by describing a single end-to-end replacement for multiple sequential calls and specifying two routing paths (SEC EDGAR/XBRL vs grounded pipeline).

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?

Explicitly says 'Use whenever the agent needs to check whether something a user said is factually correct' and distinguishes company-financial vs other claims. It notes it replaces 4–6 sequential calls but does not explicitly list alternative tools or state when not to use it.

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

All Pipedrive 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

A3.6/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Multiple tools have overlapping purposes, e.g., ask_pipeworx and ask_pipeworx_grounded are nearly identical, and entity_profile, compare_entities, and deep_research all perform multi-source lookups. An agent would struggle to distinguish between them.

Naming Consistency2/5

Naming conventions are highly inconsistent, mixing snake_case (ask_pipeworx), lowercase (deep_research), and prefixed patterns (pipedrive_, polymarket_, pipeworx_). No unified verb_noun pattern exists across the set.

Tool Count2/5

With 35 tools, the count is too high for a server named Pipedrive, which suggests a CRM focus. Many tools are unrelated to CRM (e.g., prediction market, weather, economic data), making the surface feel bloated and unfocused.

Completeness3/5

The Pipedrive subset lacks create/update/delete operations, leaving basic CRUD incomplete. However, the broader data lookup tools cover a wide range of domains (financials, drugs, patents), so overall coverage is moderate but not fully coherent with the server name.

Resources