Skip to main content
Glama

climate

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

A4.5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent/openWorld annotations, the description discloses critical behavioral nuances: the distinction between 'unsupported' (no source found) and 'could_not_verify' (verification failed due to LLM/source error), the presence of verification_error details, and an explicit warning that could_not_verify must not be treated as evidence. It also explains the routing logic between financial and non-financial claims and mentions verbatim evidence and pipeworx:// citations.

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: trigger phrases, primary use, routing details, verdict types, error semantics, and efficiency note are all packed without redundancy. The front-loading of natural-language triggers makes the purpose immediately recognizable, and the 'IMPORTANT for callers' section highlights the most critical behavioral trap.

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 complex tool with no output schema, the description fully covers return values (verdict list), evidence format (grounded/structured value with citation), error handling (could_not_verify with verification_error), and the distinction between unsupported and could_not_verify. It also explains the internal routing to authoritative sources, making the tool's behavior predictable for an agent. The openness annotations (openWorldHint) align with the fallback behavior.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds a little context about '"exact percent-delta math"' for financial claims and the tolerance cap, but most parameter meaning (claim examples, tolerance_pct override and default) is already fully captured in the input schema. No significant additional semantics are needed beyond what structured fields provide.

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 starts with explicit trigger phrases ('Is it true that…', 'fact check', 'verify the claim that…') and states the tool verifies natural-language claims against authoritative sources. It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings like deep_research or ask_pipeworx by focusing on fact-checking with verdicts, and mentions a unique two-path routing (SEC EDGAR for financial claims, grounded pipeline otherwise).

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 direct when-to-use guidance. It also contrasts with a 4–6 sequential-call alternative, suggesting it is a one-call replacement. However, it does not name specific sibling tools or state when not to use this tool in favor of another, so it falls just short of a 5.

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

All climate 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
Disambiguation2/5

Multiple query-router tools overlap heavily: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research, and bet_research all serve as entry points into the same underlying data, with ask_pipeworx_beta explicitly described as currently identical to ask_pipeworx. Prediction-market tools (bet_research, polymarket_edges, polymarket_arbitrage, polymarket_fill_risk) also have fuzzy boundaries that an agent could easily mis-select.

Naming Consistency3/5

Most tools follow a readable lower_snake_case verb_noun pattern (compare_entities, get_climate_projection, resolve_entity), but conventions are mixed: pipeworx_feedback, pipeworx_trending, recent_alerts, and recent_changes are noun-first/non-imperative, and the ask_pipeworx family uses a verb-plus-variant-suffix style. The pattern is predictable enough to navigate but not consistent.

Tool Count2/5

33 tools is heavy for a single MCP server, and the server name 'climate' does not match the broad data-research, prediction-market, memory, subscription, and web-utility scope actually covered. Several tools could be consolidated (ask_pipeworx variants, discover_tools/suggest_questions, multiple polymarket scanners), which would reduce cognitive load without losing capability.

Completeness4/5

As a general data-access and research surface, the tool set is quite complete: it covers lookup, grounded verification, deep research, entity resolution, comparisons, recent changes, memory, subscriptions, alerts, feedback, and tool discovery. Minor gaps exist — the climate-specific coverage is limited to projections and model comparison despite the server name, and there is no direct tool to page through the full catalog — but for its inferred broad purpose there are no major dead ends.

Resources