Skip to main content
Glama

Findymail

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

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the readOnly/openWorld/idempotent annotations, the description discloses critical behavioral details: the exact verdict enums, the meaning of "could_not_verify" (that the check did not happen) versus "unsupported" (no source covered), and the inclusion of verification_error details. This adds substantial transparency about failure modes and return semantics.

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 lengthy but front-loaded with trigger phrases and the core purpose. Each sentence contributes useful information, including routing logic, output details, error semantics, and performance benefits. It is somewhat dense but appropriately detailed for a tool with complex 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 fully explains the return verdicts, evidence citation, reasoning, and two distinct error conditions. It also covers the two main claim categories and how they are processed, making the description complete enough for an agent to invoke and interpret results correctly without extra context.

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?

The input schema already covers both parameters with 100% description coverage, including examples and default behavior. The description adds practical guidance for tolerance_pct—such as setting 1–2 for hallucination detection and clarifying that it overrides the wording-implied tolerance—which gives it more value than a bare baseline of 3.

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/fact-checking tool with specific trigger phrases like "Is it true that…" and "verify the claim that…". It also distinguishes its scope from other tools by describing the structured SEC EDGAR path for company-financial claims and the 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?

The description explicitly states "Use whenever the agent needs to check whether something a user said is factually correct," providing clear when-to-use context. It also outlines how different claim types are routed, but it does not explicitly say when not to use this tool or name alternative tools, so it lacks a formal exclusion criterion.

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

All Findymail 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

A3.8/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Several tools have heavily overlapping purposes: ask_pipeworx and ask_pipeworx_beta are currently identical, deep_research/validate_claim/ask_pipeworx all route factual questions to the same underlying catalog, and ai_visibility_check is essentially wrapped by scan_competitor_ai_presence. The long descriptions help, but the boundaries between query, research, and verification tools are genuinely ambiguous.

Naming Consistency2/5

Names are all lowercase snake_case, but there is no consistent verb_noun or domain pattern: ask_pipeworx, findymail_find_email, scan_competitor_ai_presence, polymarket_kalshi_spread, and generate_llms_txt each use a different structural convention. The mix of brand prefixes, domain prefixes, and bare commands makes the naming feel ad hoc rather than systematic.

Tool Count2/5

33 tools is well over the 25+ threshold and reflects a server that bundles at least five distinct concerns: email lookup, structured data research, prediction-market analysis, subscriptions, and memory. Most individual tools earn their place, but the count is too high for coherent tool selection in a single MCP server.

Completeness3/5

Coverage is broad and mostly self-sufficient for the Pipeworx data ecosystem: querying, deep research, entity resolution, comparisons, verification, subscriptions, memory, and one-off utilities are all present. There are notable gaps though—there is no tool to fetch a full record from a returned pipeworx:// citation URI, and the Findymail side is limited to find/reverse with no verification or bulk capability.

Resources