Skip to main content
Glama

Emsc

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

A4.5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, but the description adds crucial behavioral context: it explains that 'could_not_verify' means the check did not happen and must not be used as evidence, and that 'unsupported' means no source was found. This goes well beyond the annotations.

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 front-loaded with trigger phrases, then states usage, return values, and critical caveats. Every sentence adds unique value, such as the warning about could_not_verify and the explanation of the fast path vs grounded pipeline. It is long but efficiently structured with no filler.

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 no output schema, the description compensates fully by detailing the verdict values, the included actual value with citation, reasoning, and error semantics. It also covers both processing paths and the tool's role in replacing multiple sequential calls, giving callers a complete picture.

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?

The input schema already provides 100% coverage for both parameters with detailed descriptions. The description adds helpful examples for the 'claim' parameter and notes tolerance_pct overrides implied tolerance with suggested ranges for hallucination detection, but these are supplementary rather than necessary for understanding the parameters.

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 starts with explicit trigger phrases ('Is it true that…', 'fact check', 'verify the claim that…') and defines the tool as 'natural-language claim verification against authoritative sources.' It clearly distinguishes its scope from siblings by focusing on factual claim verification and mentions it replaces 4–6 sequential calls, making the 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 states when to use it: 'Use whenever the agent needs to check whether something a user said is factually correct.' It also provides valuable routing guidance for company-financial claims vs other factual claims. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools, so it misses the top score.

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

All Emsc 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

A4/5.0
Disambiguation3/5

Multiple tools overlap: ask_pipeworx and ask_pipeworx_beta are currently identical, and the five prediction-market tools (bet_research, polymarket_edges, polymarket_arbitrage, polymarket_fill_risk, polymarket_edge_tracker) cover adjacent tasks that require careful reading. However, descriptions are unusually explicit about when to prefer each, and non-overlapping domains (memory, subscriptions, earthquakes, npm) are clearly separated.

Naming Consistency4/5

All tool names are snake_case with a mostly verb-first pattern (ask_, compare_, discover_, generate_, list_, scan_, search_, validate_), making the surface predictable. Minor deviations like deep_research, entity_profile, and single-word verbs (remember, recall, forget) break the pattern slightly, but each family is internally consistent.

Tool Count2/5

33 tools exceeds the 25+ threshold for 'too many,' and several could be consolidated — ask_pipeworx_beta is redundant today, and the prediction-market suite could fold into 2-3 tools. The count reflects a genuinely wide data platform with meta-tools (discover_tools, suggest_questions, ask_pipeworx) already covering discovery, so the surface feels heavy for an agent to triage.

Completeness4/5

Core workflows are well covered: querying (ask_pipeworx, grounded, deep_research), research profiles (entity_profile, compare_entities, recent_changes), input resolution (resolve_entity), fact-checking (validate_claim), memory lifecycle, and subscription lifecycle all have complete loops. Minor gaps exist, notably no tool to fetch a pipeworx:// citation URI directly (search_within expects already-fetched text), and some one-off tools like generate_llms_txt and scan_dependency feel bolted on.

Resources