Skip to main content
Glama

Gitignore

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?

Annotations already list readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint. The description adds significant behavioral detail: explains verdict values (confirmed, refuted, etc.), clarifies that 'could_not_verify' indicates a failed check (not evidence), and differentiates 'unsupported' from 'could_not_verify'.

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?

While long, every sentence earns its place: trigger phrases, scope, routing, output, error semantics, and efficiency. It is front-loaded and well-structured, with no fluff.

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?

No output schema is present, but the description explicitly enumerates return values (verdict, actual value with citation, reasoning) and error handling. It fully covers the tool's behavioral complexity.

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% for both parameters ('claim' and 'tolerance_pct'). The description adds no 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'natural-language claim verification against authoritative sources.' It distinguishes from siblings by noting it 'replaces 4–6 sequential calls' and is the go-to for fact-checking user claims. It also provides a specific scope for financial vs. other 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?

Explicitly states when to use: 'Use whenever the agent needs to check whether something a user said is factually correct.' It gives clear routing context (financial vs. other claims) but doesn't name specific alternative tools or explicitly state when not to use it, which prevents a 5.

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

All Gitignore 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

ask_pipeworx and ask_pipeworx_beta are explicitly described as functionally identical right now, making them near-duplicates. ai_visibility_check and scan_competitor_ai_presence also heavily overlap, and deep_research vs ask_pipeworx requires careful reading to know which to pick.

Naming Consistency4/5

Most tools follow a clear snake_case verb_noun pattern (list_templates, create_*, validate_claim). However, a few bare verbs break the pattern: compose, forget, recall, and remember.

Tool Count1/5

34 tools is already heavy, but the server is named 'Gitignore' and only 3 of 34 tools relate to .gitignore templates. The other 31 tools form a completely unrelated data platform, making the count an extreme mismatch for the apparent scope.

Completeness3/5

As a data platform, the surface is broad but has notable gaps: citations return pipeworx:// URIs yet no fetch/read-by-URI tool exists, and subscriptions support subscribe/unsubscribe/list but not update. For the gitignore name, only basic template list/get/compose is present, with the rest irrelevant to the stated purpose.

Resources