Skip to main content
Glama

Roblox

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

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds substantial behavioral context: the two pipeline paths (SEC EDGAR fast path vs grounded fallback), the meaning of each verdict (especially could_not_verify vs unsupported), the presence of verification_error details, and the fact that could_not_verify must not be shown as evidence. This is rich disclosure beyond annotations and no contradiction exists.

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 highly information-dense. Every sentence contributes: trigger phrases, routing logic, verdict taxonomy, error semantics, and performance benefit. It is front-loaded with the most important usage cue and structured logically. No redundant or filler content exists. Despite its length, it is concisely written for the complexity it covers.

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 carries the full burden of explaining return values: verdicts, actual value, citation, reasoning, and error behavior (verification_error with stage/detail). It also explains the two failure modes (could_not_verify vs unsupported) and when to use the fast path vs grounded pipeline. For a complex tool with two parameters and no output schema, this is impressively complete.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds real value by explaining tolerance_pct behavior: it overrides the tolerance implied by claim wording and recommends 1–2 for hallucination detection. It also clarifies the default cap of 5. The claim parameter is well exemplified in the schema (e.g., "Apple's FY2024 revenue was $400 billion"), so the description's marginal addition is sufficient to warrant a 4.

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 as natural-language claim verification against authoritative sources, with a specific verb ('validate') and resource ('claim'). It distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly mentioning it replaces 4–6 sequential calls (NL parsing → entity resolution → data lookup → comparison), which no other sibling description does.

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 states 'Use whenever the agent needs to check whether something a user said is factually correct' and provides a clear routing rule (company-financial vs other claims). It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives to avoid, but the mention of replacing sequential calls implies the added value over general-purpose tools like ask_pipeworx. Slightly more explicit contrast with ask_pipeworx_grounded would push it to 5.

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

All Roblox 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
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools have distinct purposes, especially within the Roblox and Pipeworx domains. However, the three variants of ask_pipeworx (ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded) are very similar and could cause confusion, as could deep_research vs ask_pipeworx.

Naming Consistency3/5

Naming conventions are mixed: snake_case (user_followers_count), verb_noun with underscores (ask_pipeworx), and camelCase (recall, forget). Roblox tools follow a consistent 'user_' prefix, but Pipeworx tools lack a uniform pattern.

Tool Count2/5

41 tools is excessive for a server named 'Roblox'. The majority of tools are Pipeworx data utilities, which are unrelated to the server's apparent focus. This overloading undermines coherence.

Completeness3/5

Coverage within the Roblox domain is basic (user profiles, friends, games) but misses common features like asset details or group management. Pipeworx appears comprehensive for data lookups, but the overall set lacks unified domain completeness.

Resources