Skip to main content
Glama

Reactome

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

A4.4/5.0
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 behavioral nuances: the verdict types, the special meaning of 'could_not_verify' (indicating a failure to check, not evidence), and 'unsupported' (no source found). It also warns callers not to present 'could_not_verify' as evidence, which is essential for correct invocation and interpretation.

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 longer than average but well-structured: it starts with example phrases, states the core behavior, explains routing, lists verdicts, and ends with a critical warning. Every section earns its place, though some redundancy exists (e.g., the phrase 'verified via...' could be trimmed). Overall, it is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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 that there is no output schema, the description thoroughly covers return values (verdict, value, citation, reasoning) and explains the semantics of each verdict. It also details the two processing paths and the fallback behavior. This ensures an agent can correctly select and invoke the tool without needing additional documentation.

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 already provides 100% coverage for both parameters, with detailed descriptions for 'claim' and 'tolerance_pct'. The tool description does not add per-parameter details beyond what the schema offers, but mentions 'exact percent-delta math' and tolerance overriding, which slightly reinforces the schema. Baseline 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 as 'natural-language claim verification against authoritative sources' and provides concrete trigger phrases like 'fact check' and 'verify the claim that…'. It specifies the verb (verify/validate) and resource (factual claims), and the scope is well-defined, distinguishing it from search or entity resolution tools.

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?

Explicit guidance is given: 'Use whenever the agent needs to check whether something a user said is factually correct.' It also explains the routing logic for company-financial claims vs other claims. However, it does not name specific sibling tools to avoid or provide explicit when-not-to-use conditions, only implying they are unnecessary because the tool handles all claim types.

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

All Reactome 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

B3.1/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Many tools have overlapping research purposes (ask_pipeworx, deep_research, ask_pipeworx_grounded) and multiple bet-related tools (bet_research, polymarket_arbitrage, polymarket_edges). Reactome-specific tools are few but mixed in with unrelated tools, causing ambiguity.

Naming Consistency2/5

Tool names are inconsistent: some snake_case (ask_pipeworx, deep_research), some camelCase (generate_llms_txt, list_subscriptions), and some mixed (pipeworx_feedback, poly market_arbitrage). No uniform pattern.

Tool Count2/5

35 tools is excessive for a Reactome server, as only a handful are Reactome-specific. Many tools are unrelated (e.g., bet_research, compare_entities), making the tool count feel bloated and unfocused.

Completeness2/5

The Reactome-specific tools cover basic pathway lookups but miss key operations like reactions, complexes, or advanced queries. The server's completeness for the Reactome domain is poor, diluted by many non-Reactome tools.

Resources