Skip to main content
Glama

Vimeo

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 readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds substantial context beyond these: it explains the two pipelines (SEC EDGAR + XBRL fast path vs grounded pipeline), the verdict enum, and crucially clarifies the semantics of could_not_verify vs unsupported, warning that could_not_verify must not be treated as evidence. This is rich behavioral disclosure with no contradictions.

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 every sentence earns its place: trigger phrases, use case, routing logic, return values, and an important caller warning. It is front-loaded with the purpose and ends with a critical caveat. A minor deduction for density; it could be broken into a few shorter sentences, but there is no waste.

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 complexity (two pipelines, nuanced verdicts) and lack of an output schema, the description covers all necessary aspects: what it does, when to use, how it routes, what it returns, and especially the critical distinction between could_not_verify and unsupported. It also notes the efficiency gain (replaces 4–6 sequential calls), which helps contextualize its role.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters5/5

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 meaningful guidance beyond the schema: it explains tolerance_pct's default (implied by wording, capped at 5), provides a practical use case (set 1–2 for hallucination detection), and gives concrete claim examples for the claim parameter. This exceeds baseline.

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 a specific verb+resource: natural-language claim verification against authoritative sources. It distinguishes itself with trigger phrases and a clear directive ('Use whenever the agent needs to check whether something a user said is factually correct'), and even details two distinct processing paths (SEC EDGAR for financial claims, grounded pipeline for anything else), which sets it apart from sibling tools like ask_pipeworx_grounded.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use instructions: 'Use whenever the agent needs to check whether something a user said is factually correct' and includes a list of natural-language triggers. It also explains the routing behavior for financial vs other claims. However, it does not name alternatives or explicitly state when-not-to-use, so it falls just short of a 5.

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

All Vimeo 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

Several tools have overlapping purposes: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, and ask_pipeworx_grounded are near-duplicates, and the polymarket_* family has six tools with blurred boundaries. The Vimeo tools are distinct, but the massive unrelated Pipeworx set creates ambiguity about which tool is appropriate for a given task.

Naming Consistency2/5

Tool names mix conventions: Vimeo tools use bare nouns (video, channel, user), while Pipeworx tools use verb_noun (resolve_entity, validate_claim) or noun_verb (ai_visibility_check). Some names like ask_pipeworx and pipeworx_feedback do not follow a consistent verb-first pattern.

Tool Count2/5

40 tools is far too many for a Vimeo server; only 9 tools are Vimeo-related, and the remaining 31 are an unrelated Pipeworx data toolkit. This inflates the surface area and makes the set unwieldy.

Completeness2/5

The Vimeo surface covers read operations (search, get, list) but lacks any write operations like upload, update, or delete videos. It also misses common Vimeo features like comments, likes, or portfolio management, so common tasks would hit dead ends.

Resources