Skip to main content
Glama

videogames

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?

The description goes far beyond the annotations by explaining two distinct execution paths (SEC EDGAR fast path and grounded pipeline), listing all six verdicts, and adding the crucial caveat that 'could_not_verify' does not constitute evidence and carries verification_error{stage,detail}. It also clarifies the nuanced difference between 'unsupported' and 'could_not_verify.' This is exemplary behavioral disclosure.

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 and front-loaded, starting with trigger phrases and a one-sentence definition, then organizing routing, return values, and caveats logically. Every sentence adds value—even the 'Replaces 4–6 sequential calls' line is informative. It strikes a good balance between completeness and brevity.

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 there is no output schema, the description adequately specifies the return format (verdict, actual value with citation, reasoning) and explains edge cases that could be misused ('could_not_verify' vs. 'unsupported'). It covers the full agent-facing surface: when to invoke, what routing happens, what the verdicts mean, and how failures are reported. No significant operational gap remains.

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 input schema already provides 100% coverage for both parameters, including natural-language claim examples and a thorough description of tolerance_pct semantics. The tool description adds no parameter-specific details beyond the higher-level claim concept already present in the schema. So the baseline of 3 applies, as the description doesn't meaningfully supplement the schema.

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 is exceptionally clear about the tool's purpose: it verifies natural-language factual claims against authoritative sources and returns a verdict. It provides concrete trigger phrases ('Is it true that…', 'fact check') and distinguishes itself from more general Q&A tools by specifying the verdict output and the SEC/grounded routing. No ambiguity remains about what the tool 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 gives an explicit when-to-use directive: 'Use whenever the agent needs to check whether something a user said is factually correct.' It also explains the internal routing for company-financial vs. other claims, which helps the agent anticipate behavior. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when NOT to use it, so it misses the 'when-not' element for a top score.

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

All videogames 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

A3.6/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Heavy overlap within the ask_pipeworx family (ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta which is currently identical, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research) and among prediction market tools (polymarket_arbitrage, polymarket_edges, polymarket_edge_tracker, polymarket_fill_risk, polymarket_kalshi_spread) makes selection genuinely ambiguous. Some tools are distinct (remember/recall/forget), but the clustering blurs boundaries.

Naming Consistency2/5

Conventions are mixed: some tools use verb_noun (list_games, get_game, filter_games, subscribe, unsubscribe, recall, remember) while others use ad-hoc noun phrases or brand-style names (polymarket_arbitrage, entity_profile, deep_research, ask_pipeworx, bet_research). No single pattern dominates, making it harder to predict tool names.

Tool Count1/5

34 tools is heavy, and the mismatch is severe: the server is named 'videogames' but only 3 of 34 tools (list_games, get_game, filter_games) have any relation to video games. The bulk are Pipeworx data/prediction-market/memory utilities that do not belong under this server's apparent purpose. This is a fundamental scope failure.

Completeness2/5

As a video game server, the surface is extremely thin: only list/get/filter by tags and platform, with no search by name, no CRUD, no reviews, no categories beyond the fixed filter set. The other 31 tools are irrelevant to the videogames domain, so the stated purpose is largely uncovered. The mismatch makes coverage assessment nearly impossible for the actual server name.

Resources