Skip to main content
Glama

Google_sheets

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

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, and non-destructive, but the description adds critical behavioral nuance: 'could_not_verify' means the check did not happen and carries verification_error, not evidence for/against the claim; 'unsupported' means no source covers it; returns a specific verdict set, citation, and reasoning. This goes well beyond the annotations.

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 long but well-structured and front-loaded with natural-language trigger phrases. Each sentence adds value, though the 'Replaces 4–6 sequential calls' sentence is more of a performance claim than core API guidance; it is still useful but could be trimmed without losing essential information.

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 fully explains the return values (verdict options, actual value, citation, reasoning) and the distinction between failure modes. It covers edge cases like could_not_verify and unsupported, and clarifies the tool's scope, making it complete for an AI agent to invoke correctly and interpret results.

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%, but the description adds meaning beyond the schema: it explains how tolerance_pct overrides the tolerance implied by claim wording, recommends 1–2 for hallucination detection, and notes the default cap of 5. It also gives concrete examples of claim types and clarifies what the structured vs grounded paths mean for the claim input.

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 uses specific verbs: 'validate', 'verify', 'fact check' and clearly identifies the resource: natural-language factual claims against authoritative sources. It differentiates from siblings by describing two distinct pipelines (SEC EDGAR/XBRL for company-financial claims, grounded pipeline for all others) and explicitly states it replaces 4–6 sequential calls.

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 says 'Use whenever the agent needs to check whether something a user said is factually correct' and provides routing rules (company-financial claims vs any other claim). It does not name alternative sibling tools, but the routing and scope are clear enough to avoid confusion with research or comparison tools.

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

All Google_sheets 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

B3.1/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Several tools are nearly identical: ask_pipeworx and ask_pipeworx_beta are explicitly the same, and ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_grounded, and deep_research all serve overlapping research/query purposes. discover_tools and suggest_questions both act as discovery entry points, while the five polymarket tools differentiate primarily through intricate details that are easy to confuse.

Naming Consistency2/5

Naming conventions are mixed across the set: verb_noun (ask_pipeworx, resolve_entity, validate_claim), noun_verb (sheets_append, sheets_create), noun_noun (polymarket_arbitrage, entity_profile), and bare verbs (forget, recall, subscribe). The sheets tools are internally consistent but the broader collection has no uniform pattern, with awkward names like pipeworx_trending and search_within.

Tool Count2/5

With 36 tools, the server exceeds the 25-tool threshold for 'too many'. The Google Sheets portion accounts for only 5 tools, while the majority are highly specialized Pipeworx and Polymarket tools that could be consolidated or dramatically reduced. The count feels inflated relative to the advertised 'Google_sheets' server name and its actual core purpose.

Completeness2/5

For a server named Google_sheets, the essential operations exist (create, read, write, append, list structure), but there is no delete/clear range tool and no way to add a new sheet to an existing spreadsheet. For the broader data/research scope, important lifecycles are missing (e.g., no direct way to write Pipeworx results into Sheets, no update for subscriptions, only cancel). The set falls short of fully covering either domain.

Resources