Skip to main content
Glama

chucknorris

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?

Annotations declare readOnly/openWorld/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description adds substantial behavioral context: it explains the two execution paths, return values, verdict meanings, and especially the critical distinction between could_not_verify (a failure) and unsupported (no source). This goes well beyond what annotations alone convey.

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 dense and front-loaded with trigger phrases, but it remains well-organized and each section serves a purpose (usage, pipelines, verdicts, warnings). It is longer than average but avoids redundancy and earns its length given the tool's complexity.

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 return values (verdict, actual value, citation, reasoning) and edge cases (could_not_verify with error object, unsupported). It also explains the tool's role relative to a multi-step pipeline, making it self-contained for an AI agent.

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% for both parameters, and the description further enriches them: it gives concrete example claims, explains how tolerance_pct overrides implied tolerance, and specifies the default behavior. This adds material guidance beyond the schema.

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 defines the tool as a natural-language claim verification tool with a specific verb and resource ('fact check', 'verify the claim'). It distinguishes itself from siblings by returning a verdict (confirmed/refuted/etc.) and by handling company-financial claims via a structured EDGAR pipeline and all other claims via a grounded pipeline.

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 says 'Use whenever the agent needs to check whether something a user said is factually correct.' It also provides clear guidance on claim types (company-financial vs. any other) and states that could_not_verify must not be treated as evidence. It does not explicitly name alternative tools to use instead, but the usage context is strong.

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

All chucknorris 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

A3.5/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Several tools have overlapping purposes: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, and ask_pipeworx_grounded are near-identical query routers, and the five polymarket_* tools all hunt mispricings in subtly different ways. The memory trio (remember/recall/forget) and subscription trio (subscribe/unsubscribe/recent_alerts) are distinct, but the many data-query tools create frequent ambiguity for an agent deciding which one to call.

Naming Consistency2/5

Naming is a mix of verb_noun (list_categories, resolve_entity, validate_claim), bare nouns (entity_profile, random_joke, deep_research), single verbs (forget, recall), and brand-prefixed nouns (pipeworx_feedback, pipeworx_trending). There's no consistent pattern across the set, so an agent cannot predict a tool's name from its function.

Tool Count1/5

35 tools for a server named 'chucknorris' is an extreme mismatch; only 4 tools actually relate to Chuck Norris jokes. The rest form a sprawling collection of data-research, prediction-market, subscription, and memory utilities that have nothing to do with the stated server identity and overwhelm any agent expecting a simple joke API.

Completeness2/5

The Chuck Norris joke subset is complete (random, by-category, search, categories), but the overall server attempts many unrelated domains—structured data queries, prediction-market arb, entity profiles, subscriptions, memory—none of which are clearly scoped or fully coherent. The result is a grab-bag with no single domain that feels finished, and the incongruous inclusion of joke tools adds confusion rather than coverage.

Resources