Skip to main content
Glama

Webflow

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

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the readOnly/openWorld/idempotent annotations, the description discloses critical behavioral nuances: the exact meaning of 'could_not_verify' (including the verification_error payload and that it must not be treated as evidence) versus 'unsupported'. It also explains the internal pipeline routing and that evidence is returned with citations, which is far richer than the annotation-only baseline.

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 every sentence earns its place. It opens with recognizable trigger phrases, then the core purpose, then detailed behavioral notes and a caller warning. It is front-loaded and structured logically, with no fluff.

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?

The tool is complex and has no output schema, yet the description compensates by fully explaining return values (verdicts, value, citation, reasoning), the error field, and the distinction between failure modes. It covers all important edge cases, making it as complete as needed for reliable invocation and interpretation.

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?

While the schema already describes both parameters, the description adds strategic guidance for tolerance_pct: how it overrides the wording-implied tolerance, the 1–2 range for hallucination detection, and the default cap of 5. This adds real meaning beyond the schema field descriptions.

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 the tool performs natural-language claim verification against authoritative sources, with specific trigger phrases and a list of possible verdicts. It distinguishes itself from siblings by noting it replaces 4–6 sequential calls, making its unique role evident.

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 directs use whenever the agent needs to check factual correctness, and internally differentiates between company-financial claims and other claims with distinct processing paths. 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 Webflow 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

A3.5/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Several tools have blurry boundaries: ask_pipeworx and ask_pipeworx_beta are explicitly identical right now, polymarket_edges/polymarket_arbitrage/polymarket_edge_tracker/polymarket_fill_risk all target overlapping prediction-market signals, and ai_visibility_check vs scan_competitor_ai_presence plus entity_profile vs recent_changes vs compare_entities partially duplicate each other. The Webflow tools are distinct, but the dominant Pipeworx cluster is hard to navigate.

Naming Consistency2/5

Naming mixes multiple conventions: clean verb_noun for Webflow tools (list_sites, get_collection_item), an ask_pipeworx family, plain single verbs (remember, recall, forget), and long noun-cluster names for prediction markets (polymarket_arbitrage, polymarket_edge_tracker). There is no single predictable pattern across the set.

Tool Count1/5

36 tools is excessive for a server named 'Webflow' — only about six tools actually concern the Webflow CMS (list_sites, get_site, list_collections, list_collection_items, get_collection_item, generate_llms_txt). The remaining ~30 tools form a completely different data-research/prediction-market/memory suite, making the server wildly over-scoped and mislabeled.

Completeness2/5

For the Webflow domain, the surface is read-only: sites and collections can be listed and items fetched, but there are no create, update, delete, or publish operations, leaving obvious lifecycle gaps. The extensive non-Webflow tools do not address the stated server purpose, so the mismatch hurts completeness rather than fixing it.

Resources