Skip to main content
Glama

Greenhouse

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

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond annotations (readOnly, openWorld, idempotent), the description reveals routing logic (SEC EDGAR fast path vs. grounded pipeline), return semantics (verdict types, citation, reasoning), and critical error distinctions (could_not_verify vs. unsupported). This is rich behavioral context that is not present in annotations and does not contradict them.

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 front-loaded with trigger phrases and logically organized. Each sentence contributes unique value (routing, verdicts, error states, consolidation benefits). Though dense, it is not bloated or repetitive.

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?

Given the tool's complexity and lack of an output schema, the description enumerates verdict outcomes, explains the meaning of could_not_verify and unsupported, mentions citation and reasoning, and covers both processing paths. Alongside the annotations, it equips the agent with sufficient context to invoke the tool correctly.

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?

With 100% schema coverage, the baseline is 3, but the description adds substantial meaning for tolerance_pct: explains it overrides implied wording, recommends 1-2% for hallucination detection, and clarifies default cap of 5%. This goes well beyond the schema's basic parameter descriptions.

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 identifies a specific verb and resource: 'natural-language claim verification against authoritative sources.' It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on 'fact check' / 'confirm or refute' triggers and noting it replaces a 4-6 step pipeline, setting it apart from general Q&A or research 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 when to use: 'Use whenever the agent needs to check whether something a user said is factually correct.' It also gives trigger phrases and separates handling for company-financial vs. other claims, but does not name alternative tools or provide explicit 'when-not-to-use' guidance.

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

All Greenhouse 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
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools have distinct purposes with detailed descriptions, but some overlap exists between research tools like ask_pipeworx, deep_research, and bet_research, which could confuse an agent. The Greenhouse-specific tools are clearly separated by the 'greenhouse_' prefix, aiding disambiguation.

Naming Consistency3/5

Tool names follow snake_case but vary in style: some have a prefix like 'greenhouse_' or 'pipeworx_', others do not (e.g., ask_pipeworx vs. deep_research). The verb-object pattern is inconsistent (e.g., 'generate_llms_txt' vs. 'entity_profile'), making naming less predictable.

Tool Count2/5

35 tools is excessive for a single server, especially one named 'Greenhouse' which implies an ATS focus. The set aggregates multiple domains (ATS, data research, memory, prediction markets) without clear scoping, overwhelming the agent and reducing coherence.

Completeness3/5

The Pipeworx/data research subset is fairly complete with lookups, comparisons, verification, and subscriptions. However, the Greenhouse ATS subset lacks create/update/delete operations, leaving notable gaps. The mixed domains make overall completeness uneven.

Resources