Skip to main content
Glama

Figma

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

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, non-destructive. The description adds valuable behavioral context: distinct verdict types (confirmed, approximately_correct, refuted, inconclusive, unsupported, could_not_verify), the meaning of could_not_verify with verification_error structure, the distinction between unsupported and could_not_verify, and the requirement not to treat could_not_verify as evidence. No contradiction with 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 long but dense and well-structured: trigger phrases, use case, routing, return values, and caller warnings. Every sentence adds substantive information. However, the opening is a list of example phrases rather than a crisp statement of purpose, which slightly delays the main point. Still, it remains efficient for the tool's complexity.

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?

For a tool with 2 parameters, no output schema, and rich annotations, the description is highly complete. It covers the return verdicts, the two data paths (SEC EDGAR/XBRL and grounded pipeline), evidence with citations, the error semantics of could_not_verify, and the unsupported case. This gives the agent everything needed to interpret results correctly.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds extra meaning for tolerance_pct: explains it overrides implied wording tolerance, is capped at 5 by default, and advises setting 1-2 for hallucination detection. It also provides concrete claim examples for the claim parameter, going beyond the schema's one example.

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 states the tool verifies natural-language factual claims against authoritative sources, with explicit example phrases. It distinguishes from siblings by positioning itself as the consolidated claim-verification tool that replaces multiple sequential calls, and covers both structured financial and grounded general claims.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicitly says 'Use whenever the agent needs to check whether something a user said is factually correct.' It also explains the internal routing (company-financial vs any other factual claim), providing clear context for when the tool is appropriate and indicating it is the unified replacement for a multi-step pipeline.

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

All Figma 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., ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded), and the set mixes Figma-specific tools with a large library of data-lookup tools, making it hard for an agent to distinguish when to use which.

Naming Consistency2/5

Naming conventions are inconsistent: snake_case (ask_pipeworx, deep_research), camelCase (get_me, get_file), and mixed underscores (list_comments). There is no consistent pattern across the tool set.

Tool Count1/5

The server is named 'Figma' but has 36 tools, only 5 of which are Figma-related. The remaining 31 are Pipeworx data tools, indicating a severe scope mismatch and unnecessary bloat for a Figma server.

Completeness1/5

The Figma-specific tools lack essential CRUD operations (e.g., no create, update, or delete for files or nodes). The Pipeworx tools, while extensive, are irrelevant to Figma, so the server is severely incomplete for its stated purpose.

Resources