Skip to main content
Glama

Gong

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

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already mark this as read-only, open-world, and idempotent, but the description adds significant behavioral context beyond that: it details the two routing paths, returns a verdict enumeration, explains the nuanced difference between could_not_verify and unsupported (with verification_error extension), and clarifies that could_not_verify is not evidence for or against the claim. This is rich, actionable transparency that the annotations alone don't provide.

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 longer than typical but every sentence carries load: examples, use-case, routing, return contract, and an explicit caller warning. It is front-loaded with the most important info (what it does and when to use) and well-structured with the IMPORTANT caveat separated. Minor redundancy (e.g., 'grounded pipeline' vs 'grounded or structured') but overall efficient.

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?

Despite having no output schema, the description fully specifies the return contract (verdict enum, actual value with citation, reasoning) and the error semantics. It also anticipates a critical caller mistake (treating could_not_verify as evidence) and defines unsupported. Given the tool's complexity, this description is remarkably complete without being bloated.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds extra meaning: it provides realistic examples for claim and explains that tolerance_pct overrides the wording-implied tolerance and suggests 1–2 for hallucination detection. This goes beyond the schema descriptions and helps the agent choose appropriate values.

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 fact-checker for natural-language claims, provides explicit example phrasings, and distinguishes it from sibling tools by specifying the two distinct verification paths (SEC EDGAR for financial claims, grounded pipeline for others). The verb "validate" and the resource "claim" are specific, and the description clearly differentiates this from general Q&A tools.

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?

It explicitly states "Use whenever the agent needs to check whether something a user said is factually correct," which gives clear intent. It also explains that it replaces 4–6 sequential calls, implying when to use it instead of manual pipeline composition. However, it doesn't explicitly mention when NOT to use it or name alternative sibling tools for non-claim queries, so it falls short of the top score.

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

All Gong 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 purposes due to detailed descriptions, but there is potential confusion among the many Polymarket and pipeworx-related tools. The Gong-specific tools are clearly separated.

Naming Consistency3/5

Naming conventions are mixed: some use snake_case, others camelCase, and there is inconsistency between groups (e.g., gong_* vs. polymarket_*). However, within each subgroup, naming is consistent.

Tool Count2/5

35 tools is high for coherence. The server covers multiple domains (Gong calls, data research, betting), leading to an overloaded toolset that could be streamlined into fewer, more general tools.

Completeness4/5

The toolset is comprehensive for its intended use cases, covering Gong call management, a wide array of data lookups, and Polymarket betting analysis. Minor gaps exist, such as limited CRM features beyond calls.

Resources