Skip to main content
Glama

words

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

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, so the description adds substantial non-obvious context: the SEC EDGAR fast path with exact percent-delta math, the automatic fallback to a grounded pipeline with verbatim evidence, and the specific return verdicts. The critical distinction between could_not_verify (verification failure) and unsupported (no source coverage) is disclosed, which deeply informs expected behavior beyond the annotations.

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 long but well-organized, front-loaded with usage signals and followed by a logical breakdown of behavior, return values, and caller caveats. Each sentence carries useful information—examples, decision paths, error semantics, and efficiency rationale. It is not minimal, but the density and structure keep it valuable without 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?

Despite having no output schema, the description fully explains the expected return values: verdict types, the grounded/structured actual value with citation, and reasoning. It also covers error handling (verification_error with stage/detail) and how the tool routes claim types. The guidance on interpreting verdicts and the overall workflow makes the description complete for an agent to invoke and use the tool correctly.

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%, but the description add meaningful semantics beyond the schema. It explains that tolerance_pct overrides wording-implied tolerance, caps at 5 by default, and recommends 1–2 for hallucination detection. For claim, it provides diverse examples showing expected natural-language input. This significantly enhances parameter understanding and practical use.

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 opens with concrete user phrasings, then clearly defines the tool as 'natural-language claim verification against authoritative sources.' It distinguishes itself from siblings by describing its two-path behavior (SEC EDGAR/XBRL for company financials, grounded pipeline for anything else) and by noting it replaces multiple sequential calls. The purpose is specific, actionable, and readily differentiates the tool.

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 explicitly says 'Use whenever the agent needs to check whether something a user said is factually correct,' providing direct when-to-use guidance. It also differentiates claim types (company-financial vs. other) and offers important caller guidance about interpreting could_not_verify versus unsupported. However, it does not name alternative tools or explicitly state when not to use it, so it falls just 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 words 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

A3.7/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Several tools overlap heavily: ask_pipeworx_beta is currently identical to ask_pipeworx, and find_related with syn/rhy options duplicates find_synonyms and find_rhymes. The six Polymarket tools and four entity-research tools also have fuzzy boundaries, so agents will struggle to reliably pick the right one.

Naming Consistency2/5

Conventions are mixed: most tools follow verb_noun (ask_, find_, compare_, validate_) but several are bare nouns or noun phrases (entity_profile, recent_alertes, recent_changes) and others are bare verbs (remember, forget, subscribe, unsubscribe). The server name 'words' matches only five of 36 tools, adding further confusion about what to expect here.

Tool Count2/5

36 tools is well into the heavy range, and the set bundles word lookups, a universal data router, six Polymarket tools, memory, subscriptions, and meta-utilities under one server. Many of these would be better split into dedicated, purpose-scoped servers.

Completeness4/5

For the dominant data-research and prediction-market scope, the surface is strong: grounded lookups, deep reseach, entity profiles, compareions, change feeds, claim verification, edge scanners, fill-risk checks, subscriptions, and memory are all covered. Minor gaps exist: taking 'words' literally there is no defintion or spelling tool, and there is no generic open-web search, but as a data-research toolkit it is quite complete.

Resources