Skip to main content
Glama

catfacts

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

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Even though annotations already declare readOnly/openWorld/idempotent, the description adds substantial behavioral detail beyond annotations: it explains the two fallback paths, the meaning of each verdict (especially that 'could_not_verify' does not count as evidence), the inclusion of a verification_error object with stage/detail, and the tolerance_pct override behavior. This goes well beyond the structured annotations.

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 every sentence contributes useful information: examples, routing logic, verdict meanings, error semantics, and integration notes. It is well-structured, starting with usage examples then flowing into technical behavior. It earns its length for a complex tool, though a slightly tighter organization could improve scannability.

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 adequately covers return values (verdict, actual value with citation, reasoning) and error behavior (verification_error, could_not_verify semantics). It also addresses the source routing context and the tolerance override. The tool's complexity is fully matched by the description, leaving no major gaps for an agent to select and invoke it correctly.

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 adds significant meaning beyond the schema. For 'claim' it provides concrete natural-language examples. For 'tolerance_pct' it explains the numeric range, the default behavior (implied by wording, capped at 5), and a concrete use case (hallucination detection with 1–2). This enriches parameter understanding for correct invocation.

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's purpose with verbs like 'verify', 'confirm or refute', and 'fact check', targeting natural-language claim verification. It distinguishes itself from siblings by describing two routing paths (SEC EDGAR/XBRL fast path and grounded pipeline) and by noting it replaces 4–6 sequential calls, which is unique among likely similar tools like get_fact or get_facts.

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: 'Use whenever the agent needs to check whether something a user said is factually correct.' It also gives clear guidance on interpreting results, especially the critical distinction between 'could_not_verify' and 'unsupported'. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, though the mention of replacing sequential calls implies a consolidation benefit.

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

All catfacts 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

Several tools have overlapping purposes: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, and ask_pipeworx_grounded are nearly identical in routing, differing only in response mode; bet_research and polymarket_edges both surface betting opportunities. Even with detailed descriptions, an agent could easily select the wrong one for a given task.

Naming Consistency2/5

Tool names are all snake_case, but the pattern is inconsistent: some are verb_noun (get_fact, list_breeds, validate_claim), some are noun/adjective compounds (entity_profile, deep_research, bet_research), and several use a pipeworx_ prefix. There is no consistent verb style or object-first convention.

Tool Count2/5

34 tools is over the 25-tool threshold for a server whose name suggests a narrow cat-facts focus. Only 3 tools relate to cat facts; the rest form a sprawling data platform, creating a severe scope mismatch that makes the count feel excessive and unfocused.

Completeness3/5

For the cat-facts domain, the set covers the essentials: single fact, multiple facts, and breed listing. However, the overall tool surface is a mix of unrelated capabilities (data lookups, memory, subscriptions, prediction markets) that don't form a coherent domain, leaving the cat-facts portion sparse and the broader set without clear lifecycle coverage.

Resources