Skip to main content
Glama

Datacite

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

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare read-only, open-world, and idempotent behavior. The description adds significant context by explaining the meaning of each verdict (especially the crucial distinction between could_not_verify and unsupported), the structured vs. grounded pipeline, and the presence of verification_error. Goes well beyond annotations and is not contradictory.

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?

Slightly verbose but well-structured: triggers, usage, pipeline, outputs, and important caveats. Every sentence contributes value, but the description could be trimmed without losing key information. Front-loaded with trigger phrases and clear purpose.

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?

For a complex tool with no output schema, the description is remarkably complete. It covers the return verdict types, meaning, special error cases, citation format, and even explains the efficiency gain. It provides enough detail for an agent to know what to expect and how to interpret results.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description enhances tolerance_pct by explaining it overrides implied tolerances and suggests specific values (1–2) for hallucination detection, adding practical guidance beyond the schema. Claim parameter is inherently clear from the schema and description.

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 explicitly states the tool's function with verbs like 'validate', 'fact check', 'verify' and a clear resource ('natural-language claim'). It distinguishes itself from siblings by explaining it performs end-to-end claim verification and replaces 4–6 sequential calls, setting it apart from simpler search or ask tools.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Provides explicit guidance on when to use ('Use whenever the agent needs to check whether something a user said is factually correct') and describes the routing behavior for financial vs. other claims, plus important semantics for verdicts. It effectively communicates usage context and differentiation from alternative tools.

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

All Datacite 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

A3.7/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Several tools occupy overlapping roles: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, and ask_pipeworx_grounded are near-identical entry points (beta currently behaves exactly like stable), while entity_profile, recent_changes, and compare_entities all target company research. The prediction-market cluster (bet_research, polymarket_edges, polymarket_arbitrage, polymarket_edge_tracker, polymarket_fill_risk, polymarket_kalshi_spread) is large enough that an agent could easily select the wrong one.

Naming Consistency2/5

Naming conventions are mixed throughout: verb_noun patterns (search_dois, list_repositories, validate_claim) coexist with noun phrases (entity_profile, recent_alerts, ai_visibility_check) and bare verbs (remember, recall, forget, subscribe). The only consistent thread is snake_case, but the grammatical style is unpredictable.

Tool Count2/5

At 34 tools, the server is overstuffed, especially given its apparent focus is DataCite but only 3 tools actually serve that domain (get_doi, search_dois, list_repositories). The rest are a grab bag of Pipeworx data routing, prediction-market analytics, memory, and subscription utilities that would be better split into separate focused servers.

Completeness2/5

The DataCite surface is incomplete (no DOI creation, update, or deletion despite DataCite supporting registration), while the Pipeworx surface has no direct fetch-by-URI tool for the pipeworx:// citations that other tools return. The presence of a duplicate beta router and a beta router with no active differences further muddies the coverage picture.

Resources