Skip to main content
Glama

Google_ads

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

A4.5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The description provides extensive behavioral context beyond the annotations: it explains the routing logic, the meaning of each verdict, and critically warns that 'could_not_verify means the check did not happen... must not be shown as one.' It also discloses that the tool returns evidence with citations and reasoning, which the annotations do not convey. 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?

The description is long but well-structured and front-loaded with natural-language triggers. Every section serves a purpose: usage, routing, output format, and important caveats. It uses clear labels ('IMPORTANT for callers') to highlight critical behavioral notes, and there is no redundant or fluff content.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must fully specify return values, and it does: it lists the verdicts, the 'grounded or structured actual value with pipeworx:// citation,' and reasoning. It also covers edge-case semantics (unsupported vs. could_not_verify) and the two routing paths, leaving no significant gaps 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.

Parameters3/5

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

The input schema covers all parameters with detailed descriptions, so baseline is 3. The description adds a few illustrative examples (e.g., 'Apple's FY2024 revenue was $400 billion') and mentions 'exact percent-delta math,' but it does not significantly enrich parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides.

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 defines the tool as 'natural-language claim verification against authoritative sources' and specifies its scope (fact-checking user statements). It distinguishes itself by describing the two processing paths (SEC EDGAR for company financials, grounded pipeline for other claims) and the output verdicts, which differentiates it from sibling tools like ask_pipeworx_grounded or deep_research.

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 the tool: 'Use whenever the agent needs to check whether something a user said is factually correct.' It also provides usage nuance by differentiating financial claims from other factual claims and mentions it replaces multiple sequential calls. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or point to alternative tools, so it falls short of a 5.

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

All Google_ads 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

The five gads_* tools are distinct, but the majority of the surface is a sprawling research/meta toolkit with many overlapping retrieval entry points: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research, discover_tools, suggest_questions, validate_claim, entity_profile, compare_entities, recent_changes, and search_within all cover overlapping information-query territory. An agent could easily misroute a question among the ask_pipeworx variants or between the general-query and company-profile tools.

Naming Consistency3/5

Domain prefixes like gads_, polymarket_, and ask_pipeworx_ provide some structure, but naming conventions are mixed: gads_list_campaigns and list_subscriptions follow verb_noun, while entity_profile, ai_visibility_check, remember, and generate_llms_txt do not. The names are readable and grouped by prefix, but they do not form one consistent pattern.

Tool Count2/5

At 36 tools this is a large surface, and the count becomes even more problematic because the server is named Google_ads while only 5 of the 36 tools relate to Google Ads. The other 31 tools are a broad Pipeworx data-research, prediction-market, memory, and subscription utility set, which makes the server feel bloated and mis-scoped for its advertised purpose.

Completeness2/5

As a Google Ads server, the surface is read-only and incomplete: it can list campaigns and ad groups, get campaign details, pull metrics, and run GAQL, but it cannot create, update, or delete campaigns, manage budgets and bids, or handle keywords, audiences, or ad creatives. The many unrelated data-research tools do not address these core Google Ads management gaps.

Resources