Skip to main content
Glama

Facebook_ads

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. Added

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations declare read-only, open-world, idempotent, and non-destructive hints, and the description adds significant context beyond them: the SEC/XBRL fast path vs grounded fallback, the verdict enum, and the crucial caveat that could_not_verify carries a verification_error and must not be treated as evidence. This is rich behavioral disclosure.

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 longer than average but every sentence is targeted: trigger phrases, usage, pipeline, return values, and caller caveats. It is front-loaded with examples and not padded, though slightly verbose for a single-purpose tool.

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 thoroughly documents return values (six verdicts), the structured vs grounded source paths, and the meaning of each edge case. It even explains why the tool replaces multiple sequential calls, making the overall behavior fully understood.

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% with detailed parameter descriptions, including tolerance_pct's semantics and default. The description adds a bit of context ('exact percent-delta math') but no new parameter-specific details beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 specifies the exact job: natural-language claim verification against authoritative sources, with concrete trigger phrases. It clearly distinguishes this tool from general research by focusing on true/false checks and even splits into two pathways (financial vs any other claim).

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 states when to use this tool: 'whenever the agent needs to check whether something a user said is factually correct.' It also gives important usage guidance for interpreting edge verdicts (could_not_verify vs unsupported). However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling tools like deep_research or ask_pipeworx_grounded, so it's 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 Facebook_ads 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
Disambiguation4/5

The 11 fb_* Facebook tools are clearly separated by resource (account vs campaign vs adset) and action (list vs get vs create), and the Pipeworx research tools each have distinct roles (router, grounded, profile, compare, research). However, ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, and deep_research overlap in routing/fan-out behavior, and ai_visibility_check vs scan_competitor_ai_presence are near-identical in purpose, creating some ambiguity.

Naming Consistency3/5

The 11 fb_* tools follow a consistent fb_verb_noun pattern (except fb_get_campaign vs fb_list_*), but the remaining 25+ tools mix verb-first (ask_pipeworx, compare_entities, resolve_entity), noun-first (entity_profile, recent_changes, polymarket_edges), and generic names (forget, recall, remember). Pipeworx tools use verb_noun mostly consistently (ask_pipeworx, discover_tools, resolve_entity) but the overall set blends two naming cultures without a unifying prefix or pattern.

Tool Count3/5

36 tools is on the heavy side for one server. The Facebook ads domain only needs ~11 tools, while the rest are a sprawling Pipeworx research/meta platform (memory, subscription, prediction-market, web-tooling, AI-visibility) that feels like several servers merged into one. Each area is internally coherent, but as a single MCP server the count is bloated.

Completeness4/5

The Facebook ads surface covers list accounts/campaigns/adsets and read campaigns/insights, but notably lacks create/update/delete operations for campaigns and adsets, so the ad-management workflow has dead ends. The Pipeworx research side is extremely complete for data lookup (router, grounded, deep research, entity profiles, comparisons, verification), though the memory/subscription tools introduce a separate domain that is only thinly supported.

Resources