Skip to main content
Glama

Github_private

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

A5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Goes well beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations by disclosing the two execution paths (SEC EDGAR fast path vs. grounded pipeline), the meaning of could_not_verify vs. unsupported, and that it replaces 4-6 sequential calls. 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.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Though long, every sentence earns its place. It front-loads with query examples and purpose, then logically covers routing, return values, and caveats. No redundancy or filler.

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 without an output schema, it fully describes the verdict enum, citation format, reasoning, error semantics (verification_error), and the two processing paths. The agent has enough information to invoke and interpret results correctly.

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

Parameters5/5

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

Schema coverage is 100%, and the description adds extra practical semantics: for tolerance_pct it explains how to override for hallucination detection (1-2), clarifies the default cap of 5, and provides illustrative examples for the claim parameter. This enriches the schema meaningfully.

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's purpose: natural-language claim verification against authoritative sources. It gives specific verb-resource phrasing ('verify the claim that...') and distinguishes it from sibling tools by focusing on fact-checking with verdicts, not general Q&A or research.

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?

Directly says 'Use whenever the agent needs to check whether something a user said is factually correct.' It also provides routing guidance for financial vs. other claims and explicitly warns about the could_not_verify state, telling callers not to treat it as evidence.

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

All Github_private 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

There is significant overlap among many tools: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research, and validate_claim all serve query-answer purposes with subtle differences, and multiple polymarket tools (polymarket_arbitrage, polymarket_edges, polymarket_edge_tracker, polymarket_fill_risk, polymarket_kalshi_spread) cover similar arbitrage/mispricing territory. Additionally, ai_visibility_check and scan_competitor_ai_presence clearly overlap, making it hard to pick the right one.

Naming Consistency2/5

Tool names follow no consistent pattern. Some use a gh_ prefix (gh_get_file, gh_get_repo, etc.), others are descriptive phrases (ask_pipeworx, compare_entities, bet_research), and a few are plain verbs (remember, recall, forget, subscribe, unsubscribe). The mixed conventions and varied verb/noun styles make the set feel disjointed.

Tool Count3/5

At 37 tools, the count is high but still within a usable range. However, the server is named 'Github_private' yet includes only 7 GitHub-specific tools and 30+ unrelated tools (Pipeworx data, Polymarket betting, memory, etc.). This suggests the server aggregates multiple unrelated domains, making the count feel bloated for its apparent GitHub purpose.

Completeness2/5

Given the server name, the GitHub tool surface is severely incomplete: there are no create/update/delete operations for repos, no PR creation or merging, no issue comments, no branches, and no search across repos. The Pipeworx side is fairly comprehensive, but the mismatch between the server name and the actual tool set leaves major gaps for expected GitHub workflows.

Resources