Skip to main content
Glama

Youtube

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

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations declare readOnlyOpenWorld/idempotent, but the description adds critical behavioral details: could_not_verify means the check did not happen and must not be shown as evidence, unsupported means no covering source, and it explains the verdict enum, citation format, and error field. This goes far beyond the annotation hints.

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 information-dense: trigger phrases, routing rules, verdict semantics, error caveats, and efficiency claims all earn their place. It is well-front-loaded with usage context, though slightly verbose for a two-parameter tool.

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 enumerates possible verdicts, explains the distinction between could_not_verify and unsupported, describes the routing pipeline, and gives parameter guidance. For a tool with this complexity, the description provides comprehensive operational context.

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

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, but the description enhances understanding by explaining that tolerance_pct overrides the claim-wording-implied tolerance, recommends 1–2% for hallucination detection, and provides concrete claim examples. This adds value beyond the raw schema definitions.

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-checker for natural-language claims against authoritative sources, with explicit trigger phrases and a specific scope (claim verification vs. general lookup). It distinguishes itself from siblings by emphasizing verdict outputs (confirmed/refuted/etc.) and a single-call pipeline that replaces multi-step sequential processing.

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 states 'Use whenever the agent needs to check whether something a user said is factually correct' and explains routing for financial vs. other claims, plus a performance note about replacing sequential calls. However, it does not explicitly name alternative sibling tools or state when not to use it beyond the general context.

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

All Youtube 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

A3.6/5.0
Disambiguation3/5

There is meaningful overlap among the ask_pipeworx, deep_research, validate_claim, and polymarket_* tools, but the descriptions do draw fairly clear boundaries between them. The five yt_* tools are distinct and easy to tell apart, though the unrelated Pipeworx cluster makes the overall set feel muddier than it should.

Naming Consistency3/5

Most tools use readable snake_case, and there are coherent prefixes like yt_ and polymarket_, but the set mixes bare verbs (remember, recall, forget, subscribe), noun-style names (entity_profile, deep_research), and API-like names (ask_pipeworx, generate_llms_txt). The pattern is not chaotic, but it is inconsistent across the set.

Tool Count2/5

36 tools is well above the typical well-scoped range, and the vast majority are unrelated to the server's stated 'Youtube' identity. The actual YouTube surface is only five tools, while 31 tools belong to a different Pipeworx/Polymarket domain.

Completeness2/5

For a YouTube-focused server, the yt_* tools cover search, channel info, video details, and comments, but miss obvious surfaces like playlists, transcripts, subscriptions, uploads, and video updates. The large non-YouTube tool collection does not fill these gaps; it only makes the server feel mis-scoped.

Resources