Skip to main content
Glama

Figshare

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?

Beyond the annotations (readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, non-destructive), the description adds crucial behavioral detail: the verdict set, the critical distinction between 'could_not_verify' (verification_error, not evidence) and 'unsupported' (no source covered), the routing to SEC EDGAR vs. grounded pipeline, and the output shape with citations and reasoning. This goes well beyond the structured annotation safety profile.

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 dense and front-loaded with trigger phrases, then flows logically: purpose, routing, output, caller cautions, and efficiency context. Every sentence adds meaningful information—no filler. Despite its length, it remains well-structured and information-dense.

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?

The description covers the tool's purpose, routing logic, return values (verdicts, actual value, citation, reasoning), and error semantics. It even warns callers about misinterpreting 'could_not_verify.' With no output schema present, this description fully compensates and gives the agent enough context to invoke the tool correctly and interpret results.

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 describes both parameters fully (100% coverage), including the tolerance_pct range, default, and override semantics. The tool description adds no extra parameter-level details beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 concrete trigger phrases and states a specific verb+resource: 'natural-language claim verification against authoritative sources.' It clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings by noting it replaces 4–6 sequential calls and routes company-financial claims through a structured SEC EDGAR fast path vs. a grounded pipeline for all other factual claims.

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?

Explicit guidance says 'Use whenever the agent needs to check whether something a user said is factually correct.' It also explains the routing behavior for company-financial vs. other claims and mentions replacing multi-step sequential calls, but it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when NOT to use this tool. Thus it has clear context but lacks explicit exclusions/alternatives.

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

All Figshare 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

A3.7/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Multiple tools overlap heavily: ask_pipeworx and ask_pipeworx_beta are documented as currently identical, ask_pipeworx_grounded/deep_research route the same class of questions, and the six polymarket_* tools plus bet_research form a confusing cluster. Some clusters (Figshare fetch/search, memory, subscriptions) are distinct, but overall boundaries are frequently unclear.

Naming Consistency4/5

Names are uniformly lowercase snake_case and mostly follow a predictable verb_noun pattern (ask_pipeworx, list_subscriptions, resolve_entity, scan_dependency). The main inconsistency is the mix of bare-noun Figshare resource names (article, articles, collection, collections) with verb-phrase tool names.

Tool Count2/5

38 tools is well above the comfortable scope for a coherent server, especially one named Figshare. Most of the surface is unrelated to Figshare, bundling Pipeworx research, Polymarket analysis, memory, subscriptions, AI visibility, and npm checks into a single connection.

Completeness2/5

The Figshare read-side is reasonably covered (search, article metadata, files, collections, categories, licenses), but there are no create/update/delete or account/upload operations. The broader advertised surface is a grab bag with no clear domain boundary, and several subdomains are shallow while prediction markets are over-represented.

Resources