Skip to main content
Glama

Corporate Apology

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?

The description goes well beyond the annotations (readOnly, openWorld, idempotent) by detailing the exact verdict enum, the pipeline for financial vs. other claims, the semantics of could_not_verify and unsupported (including verification_error{stage,detail}), and that it returns verbatim evidence with pipeworx:// citations. This is critical behavioral context not present in the schema or annotations.

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, starting with trigger phrases, then pipeline explanation, then verdict semantics, and a caller warning. Every sentence adds meaningful information; however, it could be slightly tightened by using bullet points or risk overwhelming the agent with a dense paragraph.

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), error semantics, and routing logic. It also explains the tool's position relative to sequential alternatives. This is comprehensive for a tool of this complexity, making it highly usable without needing to read the underlying implementation.

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 has 100% coverage with detailed descriptions for both parameters. The tool description adds value by explaining that tolerance_pct overrides the wording-implied tolerance, specifies a default cap at 5, and suggests 1–2 for hallucination detection—information not in the schema. This goes beyond the baseline of 3.

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 opens with concrete trigger phrases ("Is it true that…", "fact check", "verify the claim") and explicitly states the tool's function: natural-language claim verification against authoritative sources. It distinguishes this from the sibling research tools by noting it replaces 4–6 sequential calls and synthesizes the verdict in one step.

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 clearly says "Use whenever the agent needs to check whether something a user said is factually correct" and even partitions financial claims vs. other claims with different handling paths. It does not explicitly name alternatives like ask_pipeworx_grounded or deep_research and when not to use them, but the guidance is strong enough to steer an agent correctly.

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

All Corporate Apology 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

A3.8/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools have clearly distinct purposes with detailed descriptions. Some overlap exists in the Polymarket-related tools, but each has a specific focus (arbitrage detection, edge scanning, persistence tracking, fill risk, cross-venue spread). The two ask_pipeworx variants are similar but differentiated by hallucination resistance.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tool names use lowercase with underscores, following a consistent pattern of verb_noun or noun_verb. Examples include 'ai_visibility_check', 'bet_research', 'entity_profile', and 'validate_claim'. There are no mixed conventions or erratic naming.

Tool Count2/5

The server is named 'Corporate Apology' but contains 31 tools, only one of which (corporate_apology_generate) relates to apologies. The vast majority are unrelated data retrieval and analysis tools, making the count excessive and poorly scoped for the server's stated purpose.

Completeness1/5

For a server focused on corporate apologies, the only tool is corporate_apology_generate. There are no tools for analyzing apology impact, managing crisis response, or tracking apologies. The tool surface is severely incomplete relative to the server's name.

Resources