Skip to main content
Glama

Commons Wikimedia

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. First observed

TDQS

A4.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already state readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, but the description adds significant behavioral context: routing logic, the distinction between could_not_verify (check did not happen) and unsupported (no source covers it), and the explicit warning that could_not_verify must not be treated as evidence. These details go well beyond the annotations and help the agent interpret results safely.

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 well-structured: triggers, usage, routing, return values, special verdicts, and efficiency. Each sentence contributes substantive information, though some redundancy exists (e.g., repeating the 'could_not_verify' warning). It is appropriately verbose for the tool's complexity, but not maximally concise.

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 compensates by enumerating the verdict types and explaining the two ambiguous ones (could_not_verify, unsupported). It covers input expectations, routing, evidence citation, and why this tool is a shortcut over multiple calls. Given the tool's complexity, this is a complete picture for an agent to select and invoke it.

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?

Although schema coverage is 100%, the description adds crucial semantics: for tolerance_pct it explains how it overrides the claim's implied tolerance, recommends 1–2 for hallucination detection, and states the default is capped at 5. For claim, it provides realistic examples. This enriches the schema descriptions and guides correct usage.

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 verifies natural-language factual claims ('fact check', 'verify the claim that…') against authoritative sources. It distinguishes from siblings by detailing the structured SEC EDGAR fast path for company-financial claims and the grounded pipeline for all other claims, and notes it replaces 4–6 sequential calls, making its unique role explicit.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

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 gives concrete criteria for when to use the fast path vs grounded pipeline. It also clarifies the meaning of could_not_verify and unsupported verdicts, guiding callers on how to interpret results, which effectively says when the tool's answer is not usable.

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

All Commons Wikimedia 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

C2.9/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Multiple tools have heavily overlapping purposes: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, and ask_pipeworx_grounded are near-identical routers, and the six polymarket_* tools plus bet_research all cover prediction-market analysis with blurry boundaries. The server name 'Commons Wikimedia' also clashes with 30+ Pipeworx tools, making the overall purpose ambiguous. Only the handful of Commons-specific tools (category_members, file_info, file_revisions, random_image, search) are clearly distinct.

Naming Consistency3/5

All names are lowercase snake_case and many follow a noun_phrase pattern (entity_profile, polymarket_edges, recent_changes), but verb styles are inconsistent: some are bare verbs (search, recall, subscribe), some are verb_noun (generate_llms_txt, resolve_entity, validate_claim), and several are noun-only (category_members, file_info, pipeworx_feedback). The style is readable but not predictable, mixing action-first and object-first conventions.

Tool Count2/5

36 tools is far too many for a server ostensibly named 'Commons Wikimedia' — the vast majority belong to the Pipeworx data platform, not Wikimedia Commons. The count exceeds the 25-tool threshold for 'too many,' and the scope mismatch between the server name and the actual toolset makes the abundance feel even more unjustified.

Completeness2/5

For 'Commons Wikimedia,' the surface is severely incomplete: there is no upload, no category tree navigation, no file download, and no structured search beyond full-text. For the Pipeworx domain, coverage is broad but indirect — most data access funnels through aggregate/meta tools (ask_pipeworx, entity_profile, deep_research) rather than direct per-source tools, leaving gaps for granular lookups and leaving the Commons tools stranded with no real integration.

Resources