Skip to main content
Glama

The Graph

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

A4.5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The description goes well beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint) by explaining critical behavioral nuances: the distinction between 'could_not_verify' (a failed check, not evidence) and 'unsupported' (no source covers it), the routing logic, and the return structure with citations. It also discloses limits like percent-delta math and the cap on tolerance, providing significant transparency.

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 lengthy but appropriately so for a complex tool. It is front-loaded with example phrasings, then explains purpose, pipeline routing, return values, and a crucial caller warning. Every sentence adds value, and the 'IMPORTANT for callers' section is clearly structured for practical use.

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 specifies the return format (verdict types, actual value with citation, reasoning) and explains the meaning of each verdict, including the error field for 'could_not_verify'. It covers both pipeline paths and the tool's role as a replacement for multiple steps, making it complete for an agent to invoke and interpret results.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces the claim parameter with examples and mentions tolerance_pct indirectly (percent-delta math, implied tolerance), but it does not add substantial semantic detail beyond what the schema already provides. The schema's own descriptions are already thorough, so the description adds marginal value here.

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 a natural-language claim verification tool, with explicit example phrasings and a specific verb+resource ('verify the claim'). It distinguishes itself from siblings by detailing the two pipeline paths (SEC EDGAR/XBRL for company financial claims, grounded pipeline for everything else) and noting it replaces 4–6 sequential calls, making its unique role clear.

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?

It explicitly states 'Use whenever the agent needs to check whether something a user said is factually correct,' which is clear when-to-use guidance. It also explains the division between financial and non-financial claims. However, it does not provide explicit when-not-to-use guidance or name alternative tools, which would elevate it to a 5.

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

All The Graph 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

A3.8/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Several tools overlap heavily: ask_pipeworx and ask_pipeworx_beta are described as currently identical, and deep_research/ask_pipeworx plus the many polymarket_* tools have adjacent intents that are easy to confuse. scan_competitor_ai_presence also directly wraps ai_visibility_check, so an agent can easily select the wrong tool for the same task.

Naming Consistency3/5

Names are consistently snake_case, but the convention is mixed: some are verb-first (query_subgraph, introspect_schema, validate_claim), some are noun-first (entity_profile, polymarket_edges, pipeworx_trending), and some are bare verbs (remember, recall, forget). The repeated prefixes help, but there is no single predictable naming pattern across the set.

Tool Count2/5

With 33 tools, this exceeds a reasonable single-server footprint, and the scope sprawls across data routing, prediction markets, AI visibility, npm dependencies, llms.txt generation, memory, and subscriptions. Many tools feel like separate mini-applications rather than one coherent toolkit for The Graph.

Completeness3/5

The Pipeworx data-research and prediction-market side is well covered with lookup, grounded answers, research, comparison, profiles, claims, subscriptions, and memory. However, the server's apparent namesake, The Graph, is thin: only query_subgraph and introspect_schema exist, with no subgraph discovery, status, or management tools.

Resources