Skip to main content
Glama

archive

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?

The description goes well beyond the annotations (readOnly, idempotent). It discloses critical behavior: the dual processing paths, the exact verdict set, the inclusion of evidence citations, and most importantly the semantic distinction between 'could_not_verify' (verification failed, must not be used as evidence) and 'unsupported' (no source coverage). This is essential for correct agent interpretation.

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. It front-loads user-facing phrasings, then moves to usage, behavior, return values, and caveats. Each sentence adds value, though the final sentence about replacing 4-6 calls could be considered a bonus rather than necessary. The structure is logical, and the caveat about 'could_not_verify' is explicitly highlighted.

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 no output schema, the description fully specifies the return object (verdict, value with citation, reasoning) and explains the error semantics. It covers input, routing logic, and both claim types. With only 2 parameters and rich annotations, the description leaves no important gaps for an agent to invoke and interpret the tool correctly.

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?

The schema already covers both parameters with examples and descriptions, but the description adds key operational nuance: tolerance_pct overrides the tolerance implied by the claim wording, recommends 1-2 for hallucination detection, and notes the default cap of 5. This enriches the schema's static 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 claim verification tool with specific verbs: 'fact check', 'verify the claim', 'confirm or refute'. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on natural-language claims and explicitly stating it replaces 4-6 sequential calls, which sets it apart from general search or research tools.

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 when to use the tool: 'whenever the agent needs to check whether something a user said is factually correct'. It also differentiates between company-financial claims (routed to SEC EDGAR/XBRL) and other claims (grounded pipeline), providing clear context for both. It doesn't name alternative tools or give explicit 'when not to use' exclusions, but the guidance is strong.

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

All archive 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

The ask_pipeworx family (ask_pipeworx / ask_pipeworx_beta / ask_pipeworx_grounded / deep_research) has significant boundary blurring—ask_pipeworx_beta explicitly 'currently matches ask_pipeworx exactly'—and the six prediction-market tools (bet_research, polymarket_arbitrage, polymarket_edges, polymarket_edge_tracker, polymarket_fill_risk, polymarket_kalshi_spread) have heavily overlapping edge-detection purposes. Only the archive, memory, and subscription families are cleanly delineated.

Naming Consistency3/5

There are consistent family prefixes (ask_*, polymarket_*, pipeworx_*) and clean pluralized lists (list_files, list_subscriptions), but the full set mixes bare verbs (remember, recall, forget, search), nouns (entity_profile), and varying patterns (bet_research vs compare_entities, search vs search_within vs recent_changes). Readable in clusters, but no single naming convention binds the set.

Tool Count2/5

35 tools is heavy, and the count is fattened by five distinct product areas—data routing, prediction markets, archive.org access, memory, and subscriptions—that have little to do with each other or with the server name 'archive'. It sits in the 25+ heavy zone even before honoring the mismatch between its name and the sprawl of its purpose.

Completeness3/5

Individual subdomains are well-covered: the memory trio (remember/recall/forget), subscription lifecycle (subscribe/unsubscribe/list_subscriptions/recent_alerts), and archive lineup (search/get_metadata/list_files/wayback_check) are each complete, and extra machinery like pipeworx_feedback and recent_changes shows domain care. But the unifying domain is incoherent—a server named 'archive' that's also a universal data router and prediction-market toolkit—and the scope ends up both bloated and still full of gaps for any one of the intended users (e.g. no archive-item upload, no prediction-market portfolio management).

Resources