Skip to main content
Glama

ureweries

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 mark it read-only, open-world, and idempotent; the description adds substantial context: internal pipeline details (SEC EDGAR/XBRL fast path vs. grounded pipeline), return verdict enum, and especially the caller-critical semantics of could_not_verify vs. unsupported. This goes beyond what annotations provide and prevents misuse.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is long but every sentence earns its place: user intents, when-to-use, routing logic, return payload, important error semantics. It's front-loaded with examples and includes a clearly marked caveat. No redundant fluff.

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 explains the verdict enum, included value and citation, reasoning, and the verification_error field. It covers the two distinct execution paths and their implications, making the tool self-contained for an agent. The high complexity is matched by thorough disclosure.

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

Parameters5/5

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

Schema coverage is 100%, but the description enriches parameter meaning: it explains tolerance_pct's role as an override, gives concrete guidance (1–2 for hallucination detection), and notes the default cap. This is actionable guidance beyond the schema's field 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 explicitly names the tool's verb and target (validate/verify factual claims against authoritative sources) and distinguishes it from siblings by focusing on claim verification rather than open-ended research. The natural-language query examples make the 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?

It clearly states when to use (whenever the agent must check factual correctness) and gives trigger phrase examples. It also explains the two routing paths (financial vs. other) and notes it replaces 4–6 sequential calls, implying it is the efficient choice. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it.

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

All ureweries 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

A3.9/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools have clear distinct purposes, but ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_grounded, and deep_research overlap in querying Pipeworx data sources. Entity_profile and recent_changes also share some coverage. Overall, agents can differentiate, but a few pairs may cause confusion.

Naming Consistency3/5

Tool names use snake_case for multi-word (e.g., ai_visibility_check) but also single-word verbs (forget, recall, remember). The pattern is not uniform: some are verb_noun, some are just noun or verb. Mixed conventions reduce predictability.

Tool Count3/5

At 33 tools, the set is on the high side for an MCP server. The server covers a broad data-query domain, which justifies many specialized tools, but the count is borderline heavy and includes several meta-tools (discover_tools, suggest_questions). Could be streamlined without losing core functionality.

Completeness4/5

The tool surface is comprehensive for data retrieval across financial, economic, pharmaceutical, real estate, weather, and prediction markets. It includes both single-lookup and comparative tools, plus monitoring via subscriptions. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no direct update/delete for user memory beyond forget), but the core domain is well-covered.

Resources