Skip to main content
Glama

Visualcrossing

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?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, but the description adds crucial behavioral context: it distinguishes 'could_not_verify' (a failed check, NOT evidence) from 'unsupported' (no source covered), and discloses the structured vs. grounded pipeline behavior. This goes well beyond the annotations and is essential for correct invocation.

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?

Despite being long, every sentence earns its place: it opens with natural-language trigger phrases, explains the two-path routing, lists return values, and gives essential caveats about error semantics. The structure front-loads the core purpose and then layers detail, with no filler or repetition.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must explain return values, and it does: it enumerates the possible verdicts, mentions the actual value with citation, and clarifies the meaning of two edge-case verdicts. It also covers why the tool exists (replacing multi-step pipelines), making it contextually complete for a complex tool.

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 schema already fully documents both 'claim' and 'tolerance_pct'. The description adds no additional parameter-level detail—it doesn't mention tolerance_pct at all—but it does reinforce the purpose of 'claim' via examples. Since the schema carries the semantic load, a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 fact-verification function with a specific verb ('verify', 'fact check', 'confirm or refute') and resource ('natural-language claim verification against authoritative sources'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by explicitly stating it 'Replaces 4–6 sequential calls' and by scoping to factual claims, including a special fast path for company-financial claims.

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 provides explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Use whenever the agent needs to check whether something a user said is factually correct.' It also differentiates between company-financial and other claims, explaining the routing behavior. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, so it stops short of full exclusion guidance.

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

All Visualcrossing 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

A4.4/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose. Even tools with overlapping domains (e.g., ask_pipeworx and deep_research) are differentiated by use case: single lookups vs multi-faceted research. Weather, Polymarket, memory, and subscription tools are completely separate, and descriptions clarify any potential confusion.

Naming Consistency4/5

Tool names mostly follow a verb_noun pattern, but some are single verbs (forget, recall) or noun_noun (entity_profile, weather_timeline). The mix is noticeable but still predictable and readable, with consistent snake_case formatting throughout.

Tool Count4/5

With 34 tools, the server is large but each tool serves a specific function within the broad data-access domain. The count is justified given the wide range of domains (weather, company data, prediction markets, memory, subscriptions, etc.), though it is on the higher end for typical MCP servers.

Completeness4/5

The tool surface covers a wide range of operations: data retrieval, comparison, fact-checking, weather, prediction markets, memory, subscriptions, and meta-tools. There are no obvious gaps for the intended use of a unified data gateway, though some niche data sources might not be directly addressed.

Resources