Skip to main content
Glama

animequotes

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

A4.4/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds significant context beyond these: the crucial distinction between 'could_not_verify' (check did not happen) and 'unsupported' (no source covered), plus the presence of verification_error. It also discloses the return format with verdicts, evidence, and citations, giving thorough behavioral insight.

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 all details earn their place: trigger phrases, routing logic, return values, and the critical error-handling caveat. It is front-loaded with trigger phrases and organized with clear sections, though slightly verbose in listing all verdict types and the 'IMPORTANT for callers' note could be tightened.

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?

With no output schema, the description fully covers the return value (verdict types, actual value, citation, reasoning) and error semantics. It also explains the two processing paths (SEC EDGAR + XBRL fast path versus grounded pipeline) and how the tool replaces multiple sequential calls, making it 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with the schema already documenting 'claim' with a concrete example and 'tolerance_pct' with its default behavior. The description itself does not discuss parameters directly, so it adds no semantic value beyond the schema. Baseline 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 opens with the verb phrase 'fact check / verify the claim' and explicitly names the resource: natural-language claim verification against authoritative sources. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by specifying the claim-verification niche and noting it replaces 4–6 sequential calls, making its purpose unmistakable.

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 says 'Use whenever the agent needs to check whether something a user said is factually correct,' providing direct use-case guidance. It also explains how company-financial claims route to SEC EDGAR and all other claims fall through to the grounded pipeline, but does not explicitly name sibling tools or state when not to use this tool, so it stops short of a 5.

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

All animequotes 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

A3.8/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Several tools occupy blurred boundaries: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research, and validate_claim all route questions to overlapping data pipelines, and the Polymarket family (bet_research, polymarket_edges, polymarket_arbitrage, polymarket_fill_risk, polymarket_kalshi_spread) heavily overlaps in purpose. Individual descriptions are detailed, but an agent must read long text to avoid misselection, especially when the three anime-quote tools are surrounded by unrelated tool families.

Naming Consistency3/5

Most tools use snake_case and many begin with verbs (ask_, search_, resolve_, scan_, compare_, validate_), but several are noun-first or noun-phrase names like entity_profile, bet_research, random_quote, recent_alerts, recent_changes, and pipeworx_trending. There is no chaotic camelCase/snake_case mix, but the convention is not applied consistently enough for a predictable pattern.

Tool Count2/5

34 tools is heavy for any single-purpose server, and the vast majority have nothing to do with anime quotes—they are Pipeworx data tools, prediction-market tools, subscription tools, memory tools, and AI-audit tools. For a server named animequotes, only random_quote, search_by_anime, and search_by_character fit the stated purpose, making the count wildly disproportionate.

Completeness3/5

For the apparent anime-quote domain, random_quote, search_by_anime, and search_by_character cover basic lookup but leave notable gaps: no search by quote text, no quote-by-id fetch, no ability to list all series or characters, and no pagination or metadata browsing. The unrelated tools do not fill these gaps, so the anime-quote surface is functional but incomplete.

Resources