Skip to main content
Glama

Quickbooks

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

A4.5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the readOnly/openWorld/idempotent annotations, the description adds crucial behavioral details: the two routing paths (SEC EDGAR vs grounded), the exact verdict enum, the distinction between could_not_verify (check failed, not evidence) and unsupported (no source exists), and the inclusion of verbatim evidence with citations. This is rich context that annotations do not provide and is essential for correct interpretation.

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 compact but information-dense. It front-loads trigger phrases and the core purpose, then explains the two pipelines, return values, and a critical caveat in a logical order. Every sentence earns its place; the length is justified by the tool's complexity. No unnecessary fluff.

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 the tool's complexity and the absence of an output schema, the description must explain return values and failure modes on its own. It does so thoroughly: verdict values, citation behavior, reasoning, the could_not_verify vs unsupported distinction, and the fact that it replaces multiple sequential calls. This covers all essential operational aspects.

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?

The schema descriptions for 'claim' and 'tolerance_pct' are thorough, covering examples, constraints, and defaults. The tool description does not add meaningful parameter-level semantics beyond what the schema already provides. With 100% schema coverage, a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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, with trigger phrases ('fact check', 'verify the claim that…'). It distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on verdict generation and specifying two distinct pipelines (SEC EDGAR for company-financial claims, grounded pipeline for others). This is a specific verb+resource+scope that stands out from related tools like ask_pipeworx.

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?

The description explicitly says 'Use whenever the agent needs to check whether something a user said is factually correct,' providing clear when-to-use guidance. It also explains that it replaces 4–6 sequential calls, implying efficiency. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools, stopping short of the full 5-point criteria.

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

All Quickbooks 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

A3.5/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Several tools are near-duplicates (ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded), and there are overlapping clusters among the polymarket_* tools, research tools (deep_research, entity_profile, compare_entities, recent_changes), and AI-visibility tools (ai_visibility_check vs scan_competitor_ai_presence). The detailed descriptions help, but an agent selecting among these could easily pick the wrong one.

Naming Consistency2/5

Snake_case is used consistently, but the naming pattern is otherwise mixed: some tools are verb_noun (validate_claim, suggest_questions), some are bare nouns (entity_profile, polymarket_edges), some are verbs without objects (remember, forget, ask_pipeworx), and only the five QuickBooks tools share a qb_ prefix. This creates multiple naming ecosystems with no unified convention.

Tool Count2/5

At 36 tools, this is well above the 25+ threshold for 'too many'. More importantly, the server is named Quickbooks but only 5 tools are accounting-related; the other 31 are unrelated Pipeworx data, prediction-market, memory, and meta tools, making the count both excessive and off-purpose.

Completeness2/5

For the QuickBooks domain named by the server, the surface is read-only: get customer, get invoice, list accounts, list invoices, and generic query. There are no create, update, delete, payment, bill, deposit, or report operations, which is a significant gap. For the broader Pipeworx data domain it is fairly complete, but that domain is not what the server name promises.

Resources