Skip to main content
Glama

colorapi

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

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnly, openWorld, idempotent), the description discloses key behavior: the two verification pipelines, the meaning of could_not_verify vs. unsupported, the return structure (verdict, evidence, citation, reasoning), and the error field. This is rich behavioral context that helps the agent interpret results correctly.

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 information-dense; every sentence serves a purpose, covering trigger phrases, routing, verdicts, and error semantics. It is well-structured but could be tightened slightly (e.g., the examples and full verdict list are somewhat redundant with the schema and output description). Still, it earns a 4 for balance.

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 compensates fully: it explains the output verdicts, the citation format, error handling, and the fact that this replaces multiple sequential calls. It gives the agent enough context to use the tool correctly without additional documentation.

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?

The input schema already describes both parameters (claim and tolerance_pct) with 100% coverage. The description adds value by explaining how tolerance_pct overrides claim wording and suggesting values for hallucination detection, which goes beyond the schema's literal definition.

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 purpose: natural-language claim verification against authoritative sources. It gives concrete trigger phrases and examples, and distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on fact-checking with verdict outputs (confirmed, refuted, etc.) and by replacing multiple sequential calls.

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," and explains the two routing paths (company-financial vs. other claims). However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative sibling tools, 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 colorapi 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

A4/5.0
Disambiguation3/5

Some tools have distinct purposes (e.g., color tools, memory tools), but many data query tools (ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research, entity_profile) overlap significantly, making it hard for an agent to choose the right one without deep knowledge of their nuances.

Naming Consistency4/5

Most tool names use snake_case with a verb_noun pattern (e.g., convert_color, identify_color, resolve_entity), but there is inconsistency in prefixes: some use 'ask_pipeworx', others 'pipeworx_', 'polymarket_', or 'scan_'. Overall, still readable and predictable.

Tool Count3/5

33 tools is on the high side for a single server, especially one named 'colorapi' which misleadingly suggests a focus on color only. The tool count is borderline appropriate for the actual broad data integration scope, but the mismatch with the server name is problematic.

Completeness4/5

The tool set covers a wide range of data sources and operations (SEC, FDA, patents, news, Polymarket, memory, subscriptions), with few obvious gaps. Minor lacks: no direct tool for updating stored memories or handling non-US companies, but overall comprehensive.

Resources