Skip to main content
Glama

Devdocs Io

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?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint; the description adds critical behavioral nuance beyond those flags. It explains the exact meaning of 'could_not_verify' (verification did not happen, carries verification_error, must not be treated as evidence) versus 'unsupported' (no source found), describes the percent-delta calculation for financial claims, and discloses the return structure including verdict, value, citation, and reasoning.

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 long but well-organized: it starts with invocation phrasing, then routing logic, then output/error semantics, and closes with efficiency rationale. While a bit verbose, nearly every sentence carries operational value for the agent; a minor trim could improve clarity without loss.

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?

With only 2 params and no output schema, the description compensates fully by specifying both input forms, the two routing paths, the verdict vocabulary, the return payload (value + citation + reasoning), and the critical error semantics. It is entirely self-contained for the agent to select and invoke the tool 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?

The schema already provides descriptions for both params (claim and tolerance_pct), but the description adds significant extra context: concrete examples for claim, and for tolerance_pct it explains the override behavior, hallucination-detection use case, and default cap of 5%. This goes beyond the schema's basic type and range info.

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 multiple natural-language invocation examples ('Is it true that…', 'fact check'), then states it performs natural-language claim verification against authoritative sources. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools by describing two specific routing paths (SEC EDGAR structured fast path for company financials, grounded pipeline for all other claims) and mentions it replaces a 4–6 step chain of other tools.

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?

Explicitly states 'Use whenever the agent needs to check whether something a user said is factually correct' and provides clear routing rules for financial versus non-financial claims. It also positions the tool as a replacement for sequential calls, but does not explicitly name sibling tools to avoid or exclude use cases, so not a perfect 5.

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

All Devdocs Io 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

B3.1/5.0
Disambiguation3/5

There are many tools with overlapping purposes (e.g., multiple ways to ask questions, multiple Polymarket analysis tools, multiple company lookup tools). The detailed descriptions help distinguish them, but an agent could still easily select the wrong one.

Naming Consistency2/5

Tool names are inconsistent, mixing verb_noun patterns (ask_pipeworx, search_docs) with single words (db, docs) and compound names (polymarket_arbitrage, ai_visibility_check). No clear convention across the set.

Tool Count2/5

37 tools is excessive for a DevDocs documentation server; most tools are unrelated to documentation (Pipeworx data, memory, subscriptions). The core documentation functionality only requires about 7-8 tools, making the rest feel extraneous.

Completeness3/5

For the core DevDocs functionality, the tools cover listing, searching, and fetching documentation. However, the server includes many unrelated tools that are incomplete on their own (e.g., only some data lookups, no CRUD for prediction markets). Thus overall completeness is mediocre.

Resources