Skip to main content
Glama

Gmail

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.

TDQS

A5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description goes beyond these by explaining that 'could_not_verify' means the check did not happen and carries a verification_error, and must not be treated as evidence. It also discloses the composite nature ('Replaces 4–6 sequential calls') and the routing to different sources, providing rich behavioral context.

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 fairly long but well-structured and front-loaded with trigger phrases. It flows logically: purpose, pipeline routing, return value semantics, and caller warnings. Every sentence earns its place—there is no fluff or repetition. The complexity of the tool justifies the length.

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 carries the full burden of explaining return values. It enumerates the verdict types (confirmed, approximately_correct, refuted, inconclusive, unsupported, could_not_verify) and explains the difference between could_not_verify and unsupported. Combined with annotations and parameter schema, the description is complete for an agent to invoke the tool 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% for both parameters, so the baseline is 3. However, the description adds significant meaning beyond the schema for tolerance_pct: it states it overrides the tolerance implied by claim wording, recommends 1–2 for hallucination detection, and gives the default behavior (capped at 5). This is genuinely helpful guidance not present in the schema.

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 natural-language trigger phrases and states 'natural-language claim verification against authoritative sources.' It uses clear verbs like 'verify' and 'fact check' and distinguishes itself by focusing on claim verification, with explicit mention of two pipeline paths (SEC EDGAR fast path and grounded pipeline). This makes its purpose unmistakable and differentiates it from sibling tools.

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?

It explicitly says 'Use whenever the agent needs to check whether something a user said is factually correct,' providing a clear trigger condition. It also gives detailed routing guidance for company-financial vs. other claims and explains when to set tolerance_pct to 1–2 for hallucination detection. This is explicit and actionable, though it doesn't name alternative tools.

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

All Gmail 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

B3.4/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

There is significant overlap among tools, particularly within the Pipeworx family (ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded) and the Polymarket family (polymarket_arbitrage, polymarket_edges, polymarket_edge_tracker, polymarket_fill_risk, polymarket_kalshi_spread). These tools have similar purposes, making it hard for an agent to distinguish them at a glance. The Gmail tools are a small, distinct cluster, but the overall set is confusing.

Naming Consistency3/5

All tool names use snake_case, but the verb_noun pattern is inconsistent. Many start with verbs (ask_pipeworx, compare_entities, discover_tools, etc.), but some use noun_verb (bet_research), noun_noun (entity_profile), or adjective_noun (deep_research). This mixed pattern reduces predictability.

Tool Count2/5

With 36 tools, the count is high, but the server name 'Gmail' suggests a focused email service. Only 5 tools are Gmail-related, while the rest cover a vast, unrelated domain (Pipeworx, Polymarket, etc.). This mismatch makes the tool count inappropriate for the server's apparent purpose.

Completeness2/5

For the Gmail domain, the tool surface is incomplete (e.g., missing delete, archive, modify labels). For the broader Pipeworx/Polymarket domain, the tools are extensive but lack clarity in coverage. The server attempts to cover too many domains without sufficient depth in any, leading to notable gaps.

Resources