Skip to main content
Glama

Govinfo

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

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The description discloses the two execution paths, the meaning of each verdict (especially distinguishing could_not_verify from unsupported), and the requirement not to present could_not_verify as evidence. Annotations already declare readOnly and non-destructive, and the description adds substantial behavioral context beyond that, with no contradictions.

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?

Though lengthy, every sentence serves a function: trigger phrases, usage guidance, routing logic, verdict details, and caller warnings. The structure front-loads the most critical usage information and the length is justified by the tool's complexity. No filler or redundancy.

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?

The description fully covers input expectations, processing paths, output format (verdict + value + citation + reasoning), and edge cases. It also explains the tool's role in replacing sequential calls, making it standalone sufficient for an agent to invoke correctly. No output schema exists, but the description compensates adequately.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100% with both parameters thoroughly documented (claim with an example, tolerance_pct with range and default). The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema, only restating the hallucination-detection use case already present. Thus 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 identifies the tool as a natural-language claim verification service, with explicit trigger phrases and a definition of its output (verdict + evidence). It distinguishes itself from search tools by stating it replaces 4–6 sequential calls and returns a judgment, making its purpose unmistakable.

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 instructs to use whenever the agent needs to check factual correctness of a user's statement. It further provides conditional routing guidance (company-financial claims via SEC EDGAR, all others via grounded pipeline), giving the agent a clear decision framework. The warning about could_not_verify adds critical usage nuance.

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

All Govinfo 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

A3.8/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Many tools have heavily overlapping purposes: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research, discover_tools, and suggest_questions all serve lookup/discovery in similar ways, and the five polymarket_* tools plus bet_research blur together. The six genuinely GovInfo-specific tools are distinct, but an agent would struggle to pick between the numerous meta and market tools, especially when the server is supposed to be about government information.

Naming Consistency3/5

Most tools follow a readable verb_noun pattern (list_collections, search_packages, get_granule, resolve_entity), but there are deviations: domain-prefixed nouns like polymarket_arbitrage, noun-ish names like pipeworx_trending, and verb phrases like ask_pipeworx_beta or generate_llms_txt. Overall it is mixed yet still navigable, not chaotic.

Tool Count2/5

36 tools is excessive for a server named Govinfo: only about six tools (list_collections, search_packages, get_package, list_granules, get_granule, search_within) actually serve that domain, while the remaining ~30 are Pipeworx meta-tools, prediction-market helpers, memory utilities, and AI-visibility checks. The count is bloated relative to the apparent scope and dilutes the server's identity.

Completeness3/5

The core GovInfo workflow is present — list collections, search packages, fetch package metadata, list and fetch granules, and semantically search within fetched text. However, there is no tool that directly downloads or returns the full text/PDF/XML content of a package or granule; agents only get links, so a full-document workflow requires an external fetch. The unrelated tools do not fill that gap and instead distract from the domain.

Resources