Skip to main content
Glama

Gnews

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

A4.4/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The description adds substantial context beyond annotations: it explains internal routing, distinguishes 'could_not_verify' (check did not happen) from 'unsupported' (no source coverage), and warns against treating 'could_not_verify' as evidence. Annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, destructiveHint=false) are consistent; no contradiction.

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 dense and packed with essential info: trigger phrases, routing, verdict taxonomy, error semantics, and replacement value. It's front-loaded with usage triggers. While longer than average, the complexity justifies the length; every sentence earns its place, though a slight restructuring into paragraphs could improve scannability.

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 exists, so the description must explain return values, and it does thoroughly: lists six verdict types, mentions 'grounded or structured actual value with pipeworx:// citation, and reasoning,' and explains error cases. It also covers the two claim categories and the fallback behavior, making it complete for a complex tool.

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?

Input schema covers both parameters thoroughly: 'claim' includes examples, 'tolerance_pct' explains range, override behavior, and default. With 100% schema coverage, the description adds little new parameter-specific information (e.g., 'exact percent-delta math' is only indirectly related). 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 specifies verb and resource: 'validate_claim' verifies natural-language factual claims against authoritative sources. It provides trigger phrases ('fact check', 'verify the claim that...') and distinguishes itself from sibling tools by replacing 4-6 sequential calls and detailing two routing paths (SEC EDGAR+XBRL and grounded pipeline).

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 when to use: 'Use whenever the agent needs to check whether something a user said is factually correct.' It also notes it replaces multi-step pipelines, making it the primary fact-checking tool. However, it doesn't explicitly name alternatives or give when-not-to-use scenarios, so it misses the full 5-point bar.

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

All Gnews 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

A3.9/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools have distinct, well-described purposes, but there is some overlap, especially among prediction market tools (bet_research, polymarket_arbitrage, etc.) and between ask_pipeworx and ask_pipeworx_grounded. Agents might occasionally select the wrong tool without careful reading.

Naming Consistency3/5

Tool names follow a mix of snake_case and camelCase (e.g., ai_visibility_check vs discover_tools). Some names are descriptive but inconsistent in style (subscribe, unsubscribe, list_subscriptions). Pattern is not uniform.

Tool Count3/5

With 32 tools, the server covers many domains (news, financials, prediction markets, entity resolution, memory). While each tool has a justification, the count feels heavy for a single server, and some tools could be consolidated.

Completeness3/5

The tool set spans a wide range of data sources and operations, but there are notable gaps. For news, only search and top headlines exist without advanced filtering. Prediction markets lack order placement tools. The broad scope means depth is sacrificed in some areas.

Resources