Skip to main content
Glama

Wikidata

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 beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations by explaining the semantic difference between could_not_verify (a system failure, not evidence) and unsupported (no source found). It also details the two execution paths (SEC EDGAR XBRL vs grounded pipeline) and the citation behavior, which is valuable operational context.

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?

While lengthy, the description is well-structured with a purpose statement, usage guidance, behavioral caveats, and return-value explanation. It front-loads the core purpose and every sentence contributes necessary information—especially the IMPORTANT callout about could_not_verify.

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 the absence of an output schema, the description thoroughly explains the verdict types and the error semantics. It also covers when to use the tool, the routing logic, and the efficiency benefit. This is complete for a complex verification 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?

The input schema already provides 100% coverage with detailed descriptions for both parameters, including tolerance_pct's defaults and overrides. The tool description adds no new parameter semantics beyond what the schema states, so a baseline score 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 natural-language claim verification tool with example user phrasings and an explicit statement of what it does: checking factual correctness against authoritative sources. It distinguishes itself from siblings by covering the full verification pipeline and mentions it replaces multiple sequential calls.

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 provides an explicit usage rule: 'Use whenever the agent needs to check whether something a user said is factually correct.' It also differentiates between financial and non-financial claims, indicating internal routing. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use, but the guidance is strong.

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

All Wikidata 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

The tool set is extremely heterogeneous and overlapping. Multiple tools serve nearly identical purposes (ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research, discover_tools, suggest_questions), and entity-related tools (get_entity, get_wikidata_facts, entity_profile, compare_entities, resolve_entity) have unclear boundaries. The server is named Wikidata but only 3 of 34 tools actually relate to Wikidata, causing confusion about which tool is appropriate.

Naming Consistency2/5

Tool names mix multiple conventions: verb_noun (get_entity, search_entities, list_subscriptions), noun phrases (polymarket_edges, entity_profile, pipeworx_feedback), and inconsistent suffixes (_beta, _grounded). The verbs used are vague and not part of a coherent pattern (get, search, ask, discover, resolve, scan, validate, generate, remember, recall). The naming is readable but lacks a predictable system.

Tool Count2/5

34 tools is high for a server with a focused name like Wikidata, and nearly all tools belong to unrelated domains (Pipeworx data routing, Polymarket betting, memory management, subscriptions, AI visibility). The count appears bloated and scattered rather than well-scoped; most tools could be split into separate servers.

Completeness2/5

For a Wikidata server, the coverage is minimal: only search, get by ID, and human-readable facts are present, with no SPARQL query support or property-level access. The majority of tools address Pipeworx's broad data catalog, leaving the advertised Wikidata purpose severely under-served. The surface is complete for a different domain but incomplete for the stated one.

Resources