Skip to main content
Glama

Cpsc

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

A4.5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The description goes well beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations by disclosing return semantics (verdict values, grounded/structured value with citation, reasoning) and critical caller caveats: 'could_not_verify means the check did not happen... it is NOT evidence for or against the claim' and 'unsupported means we looked and cover no source for it.' This is rich behavioral context that annotations do not cover.

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: example triggers, usage directive, routing logic, return artifacts, and important error-state caveats. It is front-loaded with user-phrased examples and structured clearly from usage to semantics. No filler or redundancy.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description fully explains the return format (verdicts, actual value, citation, reasoning) and the meaning of special verdict states (could_not_verify, unsupported). It also covers the financial-vs-other routing and the math behind tolerance. Given the tool's complexity and the absence of an output schema, this is complete and unambiguous.

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 coverage is 100% and the input schema already provides detailed semantics for both parameters, including the tolerance_pct range, override behavior, and default. The main description adds little beyond the schema—it mentions exact percent-delta math but doesn't introduce new parameter-level guidance. With such high schema coverage, a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 provides specific example user phrasings ('Is it true that...' / 'fact check') and distinguishes itself from sibling research/ask tools by focusing on verdict-based fact-checking for factual claims. It also differentiates its handling of company-financial claims via SEC EDGAR versus other claims via the grounded pipeline.

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 gives explicit usage context: 'Use whenever the agent needs to check whether something a user said is factually correct.' It also explains the routing logic and notes it replaces 4–6 sequential calls, implying when this is the better single-call choice. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when NOT to use it, so it lacks the full when-not/alternatives structure.

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

All Cpsc 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
Disambiguation3/5

Most tools are organized into clearly differentiated families (ask_pipeworx vs ask_pipeworx_grounded, polymarket_edges vs polymarket_arbitrage), but there are some genuinely ambiguous pairs: ask_pipeworx_beta is currently identical to ask_pipeworx, and search_recalls/recent_recalls, ai_visibility_check/scan_competitor_ai_presence, and bet_research/polymarket_edges all require careful reading to avoid misselection.

Naming Consistency3/5

The set is consistently lowercase snake_case and contains strong families like ask_pipeworx*, polymarket_*, recent_*, and search_*. However, the naming pattern is mixed: imperative verbs (recall, forget, subscribe), noun phrases (entity_profile, recent_changes, pipeworx_trending), and action prefixes (scan_, generate_, validate_) all coexist, making the overall convention less predictable than a uniform verb_noun scheme.

Tool Count2/5

With 33 tools, the server exceeds the healthy range and spreads across many side domains: data research, prediction markets, memory, subscriptions, npm dependency checks, llms.txt generation, and AI visibility audits. No individual tool feels pointless, but the overall surface is sprawling rather than tightly curated for a single purpose.

Completeness4/5

The core research workflow is well covered: querying, grounded verification, entity resolution, profiles, comparisons, recent changes, claim validation, deep research, memory, and subscriptions. Minor gaps exist—there is no direct reader for pipeworx:// citation URIs, no tool to update or edit a stored memory, and subscriptions can be created/cancelled but not modified—but agents can work around these.

Resources