Skip to main content
Glama

Cso Ie

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

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The annotations mark read-only/idempotent; the description adds crucial behavioral details: the SEC/XBRL fast path vs grounded fallback, the exact verdict enum, and especially the distinction between could_not_verify (didn't happen, no evidence) and unsupported (no source exists). It also warns callers not to present could_not_verify as evidence.

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 multi-sentence but information-dense, front-loading trigger phrases and use case. All content is relevant to invocation and interpretation; while lengthy, it justifies its length with essential caveats. Slight wordiness prevents a 5.

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 covers return values (verdict, actual value, citation, reasoning) and both error-ish outcomes. The two-path routing and special verdict meanings are sufficiently explained for reliable use.

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?

Input schema already fully documents both params (claim, tolerance_pct). The description adds practical guidance: tolerance_pct defaults to claim wording capped at 5%, suggests 1-2% for hallucination detection, and gives claim examples. This elevates above baseline schema coverage.

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 against authoritative sources, with explicit trigger phrases. It distinguishes itself from general Q&A tools by specifying the claim-verification use case and the two verification paths.

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 it replaces multi-step sequential calls. It doesn't enumerate formal exclusions or name alternative tools, but the coverage claim ('ANY OTHER factual claim') implies universal applicability.

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

All Cso Ie 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
Disambiguation3/5

Several tools have overlapping purposes: the four ask_pipeworx variants all route to the same 5,581 tools (ask_pipeworx_beta is currently identical to stable), and the six polymarket_* tools have subtle boundaries between research, edges, and arbitrage that could cause misselection. That said, the descriptions are unusually detailed, and non-overlapping clusters (CSO table tools, memory tools, subscription tools) are clearly distinct.

Naming Consistency3/5

All names are snake_case and mostly verb-first (get_dataset, resolve_entity, validate_claim), but conventions are inconsistent: polymarket_* and pipeworx_* are brand/noun-first while bet_research and ask_pipeworx put the verb first for the same domains, and some tools are pure nouns (entity_profile, recent_alerts). The pattern is readable but far from predictable.

Tool Count2/5

At 35 tools the server is well past the 25+ 'too many' threshold for a single MCP. Several tools don't earn their place: ask_pipeworx_beta is functionally identical to ask_pipeworx right now, and the six polymarket tools plus four ask_pipeworx variants represent heavy redundancy for what are essentially two sub-domains.

Completeness4/5

The data-access core is covered end to end: discovery (discover_tools, list_datasets, suggest_questions), structured reads (ask_pipeworx, get_dataset, query_dataset), grounded verification (validate_claim, ask_pipeworx_grounded), comparison (compare_entities), change tracking (recent_changes), plus memory and subscription CRUD. Minor gaps: subscriptions can't be edited (only recreated) and unrelated utilities (generate_llms_txt, scan_dependency) dilute the focus rather than fill a real gap.

Resources