Skip to main content
Glama

Ai Briefing

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

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, but the description adds rich detail: the structured SEC EDGAR/XBRL path vs. grounded pipeline, the six possible verdicts, and critical caveats like 'could_not_verify' meaning the check did not happen and carries a verification_error. 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 densely informative, with each section (examples, routing, return values, caveats) earning its place. It is front-loaded with trigger phrases and usage guidance. Slightly verbose but well-structured and not redundant.

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 no output schema, the description thoroughly explains return verdicts and their meanings, distinguishes between 'unsupported' and 'could_not_verify', and details the two processing paths. It also highlights efficiency by replacing multiple sequential calls. This is a complete description for a complex tool.

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%, so both parameters are already described. The description adds meaningful context: the claim parameter is illustrated with concrete examples, and tolerance_pct is clarified as an override for hallucination detection with a default derived from claim wording. This adds value beyond the schema's bare 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's purpose: natural-language claim verification against authoritative sources. It provides explicit example triggers ("Is it true that…", "fact check", "verify the claim that…") and differentiates itself from siblings by noting it replaces 4–6 sequential calls, making it the dedicated fact-checking tool.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It gives explicit usage guidance: "Use whenever the agent needs to check whether something a user said is factually correct." It also provides routing rules for company-financial claims vs. other claims, and explains the tool consolidates multiple steps, making it clear when to invoke it over composing separate calls.

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

All Ai Briefing 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
Disambiguation2/5

Many tools have overlapping purposes, such as multiple tools for querying Pipeworx data (ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research, validate_claim) and numerous tools for AI news/tools (get_ai_news, get_ai_toolbelt, get_briefing, get_model_landscape, etc.). This will cause an agent to frequently misselect the appropriate tool.

Naming Consistency4/5

Most tools follow a verb_noun pattern in snake_case (e.g., compare_entities, discover_tools, get_briefing). However, a few deviate like 'bet_research' (noun_verb) and 'what_happened' (phrase), but overall the pattern is largely consistent.

Tool Count2/5

38 tools is excessive for a server called 'Ai Briefing', which suggests a focused purpose. The tool count spans multiple domains (AI visibility, Pipeworx queries, Polymarket betting, memory, subscriptions) making it feel overstuffed and unfocused.

Completeness3/5

The tool set covers many aspects of its broad domain (querying, comparing, subscribing, memory), but there are notable gaps: no tool for modifying subscriptions, no user profile management, and the AI news tools overlap rather than cover distinct needs.

Resources