Skip to main content
Glama

Reddit

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 annotations (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint), the description reveals critical behavioral nuances: could_not_verify means the check did not happen and must not be shown as evidence, unsupported means no source was found, and the return payload (verdict, actual value with citation, reasoning). It also explains the automated routing between structured and grounded pipelines, adding needed context.

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 efficiently structured: trigger phrases, usage directive, routing logic, return values, and an 'IMPORTANT for callers' warning. Every sentence serves a purpose, and the special note about could_not_verify prevents misinterpretation. Though lengthy, it is densely informative with no filler.

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 explains the return values (verdict list, actual value with citation, reasoning) and distinguishes error modes (could_not_verify vs unsupported). It covers routing, coverage, and failure semantics, making it complete for callers to anticipate behavior.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not significantly add meaning beyond the schema; for example, tolerance_pct's behavior ('Overrides the tolerance implied by the claim wording', 'set 1–2 for hallucination detection') is already fully detailed in the schema. The description's mention of 'exact percent-delta math' is more about tool behavior than parameter semantics.

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 begins with explicit natural-language trigger phrases ('Is it true that…', 'fact check', 'verify the claim that…') and states 'natural-language claim verification against authoritative sources'. It clearly distinguishes from siblings by describing a two-path system (SEC EDGAR for company-financial claims, grounded pipeline for all else) and notes it replaces 4–6 sequential calls, making it the single tool for claim verification.

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' and further explains the routing logic for claim types. However, it does not name alternative tools or provide 'when not to use' guidance, so it falls short of the explicit exclusion/alternative criteria.

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

All Reddit 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

The set has several near-duplicate tools: ask_pipeworx and ask_pipeworx_beta are explicitly designed to be identical right now, and ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research, and bet_research all overlap on routed data lookup. The three Reddit tools are distinct, but they are dwarfed by a large cluster of unrelated Pipeworx/Polymarket tools, making the actual purpose of the set hard to pin down.

Naming Consistency2/5

Naming conventions are wildly mixed: some tools use verb_noun (get_post, subscribe, suggest_questions), some use noun phrases (entity_profile, recent_alerts, pipeworx_trending), and some use ad-hoc names (ask_pipeworx, bet_research, scan_dependency). Within sub-families (polymarket_*, ask_pipeworx_*) names are consistent, but overall there is no single predictable pattern.

Tool Count1/5

34 tools is excessive for a server named 'Reddit' when only 3 of them (get_post, get_subreddit, search_posts) actually relate to Reddit. The remaining 31 tools cover unrelated domains like Pipeworx data routing, Polymarket betting, memory management, and npm dependency scanning—an extreme scope mismatch for the advertised server name.

Completeness1/5

The Reddit surface is severely incomplete: it offers read-only post/subreddit/search functionality with no create, edit, delete, vote, comment, or user-profile operations. Conversely, the Pipeworx tooling is over-complete relative to the 'Reddit' name, covering data lookups, prediction markets, subscriptions, and memory—none of which belong in a Reddit server.

Resources