Skip to main content
Glama

Clinicaltrials

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.

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds substantial behavioral context beyond this: the return format (verdict types), the two-path routing logic, the meaning and importance of could_not_verify and unsupported, and the replacement of 4–6 sequential calls. No contradictions with annotations.

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?

Although the description is lengthy, every sentence provides necessary information: usage context, example phrasings, path details, return values, and critical caller warnings. It is well-organized, front-loaded with the core purpose, and free of redundant filler.

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?

The tool has moderate-to-high complexity: two processing paths, multiple verdict values, and error semantics. Since no output schema is provided, the description correctly explains the return verdicts, the grounded/structured value with citation, and distinguishes could_not_verify from unsupported. This is complete for the tool's complexity.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters well. The description adds extra value by explaining tolerance_pct's role ('Overrides the tolerance implied by the claim wording') and giving usage guidance (e.g., 'set 1–2 for hallucination detection'). This goes beyond the schema's basic 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 states the tool's function: 'natural-language claim verification against authoritative sources.' It uses a specific verb (validate/verify) and resource (claims), and distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on fact-checking with verdicts rather than general search or research.

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 provides clear context: 'Use whenever the agent needs to check whether something a user said is factually correct.' It also explains the two sub-pathways (SEC EDGAR for company financial claims vs. grounded pipeline for others). However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when NOT to use this tool, so it falls 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 Clinicaltrials 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
Disambiguation1/5

Several tools appear to do the same thing at the top level: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta (explicitly identical today), and ask_pipeworx_grounded are near-duplicate routing entry points, and deep_research overlaps heavily with them. Among the ct_* tools, ct_count_by_condition, ct_competitive_landscape, ct_sponsor_pipeline, and ct_compare_sponsors all provide overlapping counting/landscape functionality, making correct selection genuinely ambiguous.

Naming Consistency4/5

The overwhelming majority of tools use lowercase snake_case and mostly follow a verb_noun or domain-prefixed pattern (ct_search, ct_get_study, list_subscriptions, validate_claim, resolove_entity). Some names are noun phrases rather than verbs (ct_competitive_landscape, entity_profile, polymarket_edge_tracker) but the overall style is consistent and readable, with only minor deviations.

Tool Count2/5

44 tools is far too many for a server named 'Clinicaltrials'; only 13 tools are actually clinical-trials-specific while the rest span general data lookup, prediction markets, memory, subscriptions, and npm scanning. The count is inflated by redundant entry points (ask_pipeworx/beta/grounded) and overlapping ct tools, making the set feel heavy and unfocused.

Completeness4/5

For the clinical-trials registry domain, the surface is largely complete: search, full study details, results summaries, condition counts, sponsor pipelines, location-based lookup, recent updates, and catalyst tracking are all represented. Minor gaps exist (e.g., historical versions/protocol amendments and advanced filter combinations), but most could be worked around via the universal ask_pipeworx router.

Resources