Skip to main content
Glama

Apology

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?

The description adds behavioral nuance beyond the read-only/idempotent annotations: it discloses that could_not_verify means the check did not happen and must not be treated as evidence, and explains unsupported as covering no source. It also details the dual pipeline (SEC EDGAR + XBRL vs grounded) and the rejection of false refutation.

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 longer than ideal but front-loads trigger phrases and each section earns its place: routing, return types, important caveat, and value proposition. No word is wasted, though it could be trimmed slightly by dropping the 'Replaces 4–6 sequential calls' marketing phrase.

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?

For a tool with no output schema, the description thoroughly explains verdict types, the attached value and citation, reasoning, and the error semantics of could_not_verify. It also clarifies how different claim categories are handled, making it complete for an agent to decide and interpret results.

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 covers both claim and tolerance_pct with rich descriptions (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description text doesn't add parameter-level semantics beyond the schema; the tolerance_pct behavior is already documented in the schema's description.

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 varied natural-language phrasings and states 'natural-language claim verification against authoritative sources.' It clearly names the verb (verify) and resource (factual claims), and distinguishes itself from sibling research/ask tools by describing a single-call pipeline that replaces 4–6 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 explicitly says 'Use whenever the agent needs to check whether something a user said is factually correct,' providing a clear invocation criterion. It also differentiates between company-financial claims and other claims, describing the automatic routing. However, it doesn't name alternative tools for non-claim questions, so no explicit exclusions.

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

All Apology 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

ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, and ask_pipeworx_grounded are near-duplicates with beta explicitly identical to the stable version, causing potential misselection. ai_visibility_check and scan_competitor_ai_presence overlap heavily, and resolve_entity/discover_tools/ask_pipeworx all serve lookup purposes. Many tools are distinct, but the boundaries around the core query tools are blurry.

Naming Consistency2/5

Naming is inconsistent: mostly snake_case but mixed verb styles (ask_pipeworx vs pipeworx_feedback vs resolve_entity), brand prefixes applied irregularly, and no uniform convention (e.g., subscribe/unsubscribe/list_subscriptions vs forget/remember/recall vs polymarket_arbitrage/edges/edge_tracker). Some names are descriptive, but the set lacks a predictable pattern.

Tool Count2/5

32 tools is above the 25 threshold for a heavy surface, and the server mixes unrelated domains (data lookup, prediction markets, memory, subscriptions, AI visibility, apology generation). While a large data platform could justify many tools, the random inclusions (apology_generate, generate_llms_txt, scan_dependency) suggest a lack of scoping. Several tools could be consolidated without loss.

Completeness4/5

For the dominant data-research/prediction-market domain, coverage is strong: lookup, grounded verification, research, entity resolution, comparison, arbitrage scanning, fill risk, subscriptions, memory, and discovery are all present. Minor gaps exist (no direct account management beyond subscriptions, no tool to modify stored memories), but agents can mostly achieve their goals. The stray non-domain tools do not hurt completeness of the core platform.

Resources