Skip to main content
Glama

Diffbot

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

A4.4/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The description adds significant behavioral context beyond the annotations: it explains the critical distinction between could_not_verify (check did not happen) and unsupported (no source coverage), warns callers against treating could_not_verify as evidence, and describes the two-path logic and output verdicts. This goes well beyond the read-only/idempotent annotations.

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 dense but well-organized, front-loaded with query examples and then purpose, pathway, output, and caller warnings. Every sentence contributes useful information. It is longer than typical for a 2-param tool, but the dual-path behavior and critical error semantics justify the length.

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?

Given there is no output schema, the description fully explains return values (verdict types, evidence with citation, reasoning) and error semantics. It covers the two source paths, the tolerance behavior, and the replacement of multiple sequential calls. The tool's complexity is matched by a complete and self-contained description.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, and both parameters (claim and tolerance_pct) are well-documented in the schema with examples and constraints. The description does not add meaning beyond the schema; it only references tolerance behavior indirectly. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema carries the parameter semantics fully.

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 explicitly states the tool performs 'natural-language claim verification against authoritative sources.' It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools by specifying the verification task and the dual-path routing (SEC EDGAR for financial claims, grounded pipeline for other claims), which separates it from generic ask/research 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?

It explicitly says 'Use whenever the agent needs to check whether something a user said is factually correct' and explains the automatic routing for different claim types. However, it does not name specific alternative tools for non-verification tasks (e.g., deep_research), so there's a slight gap in explicit when-not-to-use guidance.

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

All Diffbot 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

A3.6/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Multiple research entry points (ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research) and company analysis tools (entity_profile, compare_entities, recent_changes, bet_research) overlap heavily; the five polymarket_* tools also require careful reading to distinguish. Descriptions are detailed, but an agent must parse long disambiguation text to avoid mis-selection.

Naming Consistency2/5

Names mix verb-first (list_subscriptions, validate_claim, remember), noun-first (entity_profile, polymarket_arbitrage), product-prefixed (ask_pipeworx, pipeworx_feedback), and brand-prefixed (diffbot_company, diffbot_extract). No consistent verb_noun pattern across the set; polymarket_* and pipeworx_* prefixes are internally consistent but the overall scheme is chaotic.

Tool Count2/5

33 tools is well beyond the 3-15 sweet spot and in the 'too many' range. Many tools are meta-variants (4 ask_pipeworx flavors, 5 polymarket tools, 2 AI-visibility tools) that could be consolidated.

Completeness3/5

The data-research, prediction-market, memory, and subscription subdomains are each fairly complete at a meta level, with few dead ends. Gaps include no subscription update (delete + recreate required), no explicit memory update, and no direct way to execute an arbitrary discovered Pipeworx tool aside from routing through ask_pipeworx.

Resources