Skip to main content
Glama

Crawlbase

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. First observed

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnly, openWorld, idempotent), the description explains critical behavioral nuances: could_not_verify means the check did not happen and includes an error structure, unsupported means no source was found, and it mentions replacing 4–6 sequential calls. This adds substantial context not inferable from 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 longer than typical but every sentence carries value: trigger phrases, purpose, dual paths, verdict types, error distinction, and efficiency claim. It is structured with clear breaks (dashes, semicolons) and front-loads the primary use. Slightly dense but justified for the tool's complexity.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (multiple paths, verdict categories, error semantics) and absence of an output schema, the description fully explains return values and edge cases. It covers what the verdict means, what actual value is returned, how errors are signaled, and why this tool is preferable over sequential calls.

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 description coverage is 100%, so parameters are already well documented. The tool description reinforces the tolerance_pct behavior with 'exact percent-delta math' and 'capped at 5', but these are already present in the schema. No major additional meaning is added beyond what the schema provides.

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 uses specific verbs and resources: 'natural-language claim verification against authoritative sources' and lists trigger phrases like 'fact check' and 'verify the claim that…'. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing on verifying factual claims and returning a verdict, not just returning information.

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 explicitly says 'Use whenever the agent needs to check whether something a user said is factually correct' and details the two processing paths (SEC EDGAR for company financials, grounded pipeline for other claims). It does not name a specific alternative to avoid, but the use case is clear and contextualized.

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

All Crawlbase 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
Disambiguation4/5

The toolset is largely distinct: scraping, research, prediction-market, memory, and subscription tools each have clear boundaries. The ask_pipeworx family and the six Polymarket tools are closely related variants, but their descriptions provide explicit usage guidance, so an agent can select correctly with attention.

Naming Consistency3/5

Most tools use snake_case with descriptive names, but conventions are mixed: brand-prefixed noun phrases (crawlbase_scrape, polymarket_arbitrage, pipeworx_trending) sit alongside verb_noun tools (compare_entities, validate_claim) and bare verbs (remember, subscribe). The result is readable but not predictable.

Tool Count2/5

At 34 tools, the server spans several distinct domains (web scraping, structured data research, prediction markets, memory, subscriptions, feedback), making it feel like a kitchen sink rather than a focused toolset. The count is beyond the 'heavy' threshold and would benefit from splitting into separate servers.

Completeness4/5

The research surface is thorough: routing, grounded answers, deep research, entity profiles, comparisons, claim validation, and identifier resolution cover most real-world data needs. Minor gaps exist, such as no explicit tool to fetch pipeworx:// resource URIs and no crawler management for the scraping side.

Resources