Skip to main content
Glama

Csv

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

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the readOnly/openWorld/idempotent annotations, the description adds valuable behavioral detail: the structured vs. grounded pipeline routing, verdict meanings, and crucially distinguishes 'could_not_verify' from evidence against a claim, instructing callers not to show it as one.

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 average, but every sentence adds value — trigger phrases, routing logic, return values, and error semantics are all packed in. It is well structured and front-loaded with examples, though it could be slightly tightened without losing information.

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?

Even without an output schema, the description enumerates the possible verdicts, the value/citation/reasoning return fields, and the crucial verification_error detail. It fully equips the agent to use the tool and interpret results correctly.

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?

Schema covers both parameters, but the description adds meaning: examples for the claim, tolerance_pct's override behavior, default implied by wording, cap at 5, and guidance for hallucination detection settings. This is additive and practical.

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 performs natural-language claim verification, with specific trigger phrases and a precise scope. It distinguishes itself as a single-call alternative to multi-step sequential processing, making its purpose unmistakable.

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 explains different paths for company-financial vs. other claims. It lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance, but the context is clear enough.

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

All Csv 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

Several tools overlap in purpose: ask_pipeworx_beta is explicitly identical to ask_pipeworx today, and the polymarket_* family plus bet_research all touch prediction-market analysis. The descriptions are extremely detailed and mostly disambiguate, but an agent must rely on very long text to avoid misselection.

Naming Consistency3/5

Names are almost all snake_case and readable, but the pattern is mixed: some are verb-first (resolve_entity, list_subscriptions), some noun-first (entity_profile, polymarket_edges), and some are one-word verbs (remember, forget). The ask_pipeworx_* and recent_* prefixes are consistent, but there is no single verb_noun convention throughout.

Tool Count2/5

33 tools is well over the 25+ threshold, especially for a server named 'Csv' that contains only two CSV-specific tools. The rest spans several unrelated domains: data research, prediction markets, subscriptions, memory, AI visibility, and package scanning. The set feels like multiple servers bundled together rather than one well-scoped surface.

Completeness4/5

As a broad data-research platform, coverage is strong: lookup, grounded answers, deep research, entity resolution, profiles, comparisons, fact-checking, subscription lifecycle, and memory persistence are all present. Minor gaps exist, such as no direct fetch tool for pipeworx:// citation URIs and no subscription-update tool, but most workflows have no dead ends.

Resources