Skip to main content
Glama

Dataverse Harvard

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

A5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Goes well beyond the annotations. It discloses the two verification pipelines (SEC EDGAR fast path and grounded pipeline), the exact list of verdicts, the distinction between 'could_not_verify' and 'unsupported', and the error payload. It explicitly warns that 'could_not_verify' must not be treated as evidence, providing critical behavioral nuance.

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. It is front-loaded with user-phrasing examples, then flows logically through purpose, routing, outputs, warnings, and efficiency benefits. No redundant or filler content.

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 having no output schema, the description clearly enumerates return values (verdict list, grounded/structured value, citation, reasoning) and explains failure semantics. It covers edge cases, error taxonomy, and parameter behavior, making it fully complete for a tool with this complexity.

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 coverage is 100%, but the description adds rich semantics: tolerance_pct is explained with range, override behavior, suggested values for hallucination detection, and default logic. The 'claim' parameter is clarified with realistic examples. This significantly enhances the schema definitions.

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 opens with natural-language query examples and clearly states the tool validates factual claims against authoritative sources. It distinguishes itself from siblings by emphasizing fact-checking and claim verification, with explicit routing for financial vs. other claims.

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?

It explicitly states 'Use whenever the agent needs to check whether something a user said is factually correct' and provides routing details for company-financial vs. other claims. It also notes efficiency gains by replacing multiple sequential calls, giving clear invocation context.

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

All Dataverse Harvard 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

B3.4/5.0
Disambiguation3/5

Several tool pairs have overlapping purposes, notably ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, and ask_pipeworx_grounded. Also, remember/recall/forget overlap with general memory operations, and multiple polymarket tools overlap in edge detection. While the descriptions attempt to differentiate, an agent will frequently need to choose between nearly identical tools (e.g., ask_pipeworx vs. ask_pipeworx_beta).

Naming Consistency2/5

Naming conventions are mixed: snake_case (ai_visibility_check, compare_entities), camelCase (ask_pipeworx, generate_llms_txt), and inconsistent verb usage (some start with verbs like 'search', others with nouns like 'dataset'). The polymarket and pipeworx prefixes are helpful, but overall patterns are unpredictable.

Tool Count2/5

With 35 tools, this server has a very large surface area. While the domain is broad (Harvard Dataverse + Pipeworx data + Polymarket), the count feels heavy and includes many near-duplicate tools (ask_pipeworx variants) and niche tools that inflate the total. Many agents would benefit from a smaller, more focused set.

Completeness3/5

The Dataverse subset captures file metadata and search but lacks direct download/upload capabilities, causing dead ends for users who want to access actual data. The Polymarket subset lacks the ability to actually place orders despite extensive edge analysis. The Pipeworx subset covers many data queries but feels unfocused. Overall, there are notable gaps given the stated scope of the server.

Resources