Skip to main content
Glama

Pkg Go Dev

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

A4.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond annotations (read-only, idempotent), the description discloses the two execution paths (SEC EDGAR vs grounded), the exact verdict categories returned, and warns that `could_not_verify` means the check did not happen and must not be treated as evidence. It also clarifies the difference between `unsupported` and `could_not_verify`. This adds substantial behavioral context beyond what annotations provide.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is long but every sentence earns its place: it opens with practical trigger phrases, defines the two pipelines, enumerates return values, explains important caller warnings, and ends with an efficiency note. It is well-structured and front-loaded with the most actionable information.

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 having no output schema, the description fully covers return values (verdicts, evidence, reasoning), error cases (`could_not_verify` with `verification_error`), and source coverage (`unsupported`). It is self-contained for a complex tool with two execution paths, making it complete for an agent 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.

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 100% with clear descriptions for both `claim` and `tolerance_pct`. The description adds nuance about `tolerance_pct`, explaining the default behavior ('implied by wording, capped at 5') and its use for hallucination detection ('set 1–2'), which enriches understanding of parameter semantics 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 identifies the tool's purpose: natural-language claim verification against authoritative sources, with explicit trigger phrases like 'Is it true that…' and 'fact check'. It distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing on verifying claims rather than general Q&A or research, and highlights that it consolidates 4–6 sequential steps into one call.

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 states when to use: 'Use whenever the agent needs to check whether something a user said is factually correct.' It further differentiates the fast path for company financial claims and the grounded pipeline for any other factual claim, covering essentially all cases. The description implies no exclusions, making the usage context comprehensive.

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

All Pkg Go Dev 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

B3.4/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Multiple tools have overlapping purposes, such as ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, and ask_pipeworx_grounded all performing similar data lookups. Additionally, many tools focus on prediction markets and arbitrage, which are unrelated to the server's implied Go development domain, causing confusion.

Naming Consistency2/5

Tool names follow inconsistent conventions: some use snake_case (e.g., 'latest_version', 'list_versions'), some use underscores in longer names (e.g., 'ai_visibility_check', 'ask_pipeworx_grounded'), and some use colons in descriptions but not in names. This mix reduces predictability.

Tool Count2/5

With 35 tools, the count is high for a server named 'Pkg Go Dev' that only offers a few Go module-related tools (e.g., get_go_mod, list_versions). The majority are unrelated Pipeworx tools, making the scope mismatched and excessive.

Completeness1/5

The tool set severely lacks coverage for Go development tasks. It only includes basic module lookup tools (version listing, mod retrieval) but misses essential operations like dependency analysis, build commands, or testing. The vast majority of tools cover unrelated domains (prediction markets, company profiles, etc.), leaving the server incomplete for its intended purpose.

Resources