Skip to main content
Glama

Europeana

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 detail beyond the annotations: it explains the possible verdicts, clarifies that 'could_not_verify' means the check failed and must not be treated as evidence, and defines 'unsupported'. These are non-obvious semantics that the readOnly/openWorld/idempotent hints alone do not convey.

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-structured, starting with natural-language trigger phrases and then layering in usage, routing, return values, and caller warnings. While it is longer than a typical description, every sentence earns its place given the complexity of the tool's behavior.

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 carries the burden of explaining return values and edge cases. It thoroughly covers the verdict set, meaning of 'could_not_verify' vs. 'unsupported', and the consolidation of multiple pipeline steps. This is complete for a tool of this complexity.

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?

Input schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds minor context by mentioning 'exact percent-delta math' for financial claims, but the schema already thoroughly documents both 'claim' and 'tolerance_pct' with examples and defaults. The description does not significantly compensate beyond the schema.

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 clearly identifies the tool as a natural-language claim verification service with a specific verb ('validate') and resource ('claim'). It distinguishes itself from sibling search/research tools by focusing on fact-checking and by describing the financial-claim fast path vs. the grounded fallback pipeline.

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 the tool ('Use whenever the agent needs to check whether something a user said is factually correct') and distinguishes between company-financial and other claims. It does not explicitly mention sibling alternatives or when not to use it, but the usage context is strong.

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

All Europeana 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

A3.5/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Many tools have overlapping purposes, e.g., three versions of ask_pipeworx for similar tasks, and several research/analysis tools (bet_research, deep_research, entity_profile) with unclear boundaries. The mix of Europeana-specific tools with a broad research toolkit creates confusion.

Naming Consistency2/5

Tool names are inconsistent, mixing snake_case (ai_visibility_check, ask_pipeworx), verb_noun patterns (compare_entities, resolve_entity), and short names (search, record, forget). No clear naming convention is followed throughout the set.

Tool Count2/5

33 tools is excessive for a Europeana-focused server, as only 3 tools (search, record, search_within) are directly related to Europeana. The rest are a broad, unrelated toolkit, making the server feel like a kitchen sink rather than a cohesive collection.

Completeness2/5

The Europeana-specific tool surface is severely incomplete, lacking browse collections, advanced filters, or entity linking. The inclusion of many unrelated tools does not compensate for the gaps in the core domain, resulting in a poorly scoped offering.

Resources