Skip to main content
Glama

Guidetopharmacology

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

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/openWorld/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description adds substantial behavioral context: it explains the two routing paths (structured SEC EDGAR vs. grounded pipeline), the exact set of verdicts, and the crucial distinction between could_not_verify (a technical failure, not evidence) and unsupported (no source coverage). This is exactly the kind of behavioral nuance that helps an agent use the tool correctly.

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 detailed but well-organized, front-loading trigger phrases, then defining the core function, routing logic, return format, and a critical callout. The length is justified by the tool's complexity, though the list of natural-language examples could be trimmed slightly without losing meaning. Overall, it is efficient and well-structured.

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 (two pipelines, multiple verdicts, error semantics) and the absence of an output schema, the description is remarkably complete: it covers trigger scenarios, routing behavior, verdict vocabulary, return value structure (value + citation + reasoning), and the semantic distinction between could_not_verify and unsupported. This is sufficient for an agent to invoke the tool correctly without additional information.

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?

The schema covers 100% of the two parameters with descriptions, and the description adds extra semantics: tolerance_pct overrides the claim-wording tolerance, defaults are capped at 5, and a claim is framed as a natural-language statement. The mention of 'exact percent-delta math' in the financial path further connects to tolerance behavior, providing value beyond the schema.

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 opens with multiple natural-language trigger phrases and defines the tool as 'natural-language claim verification against authoritative sources,' with a clear verb (verify) and resource (claims). It distinguishes itself from siblings by naming the two distinct pipelines (SEC EDGAR/XBRL for financial claims, grounded pipeline for others) and explicitly states it returns a verdict. This is a specific, unambiguous purpose.

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 'Use whenever the agent needs to check whether something a user said is factually correct,' providing a clear when-to-use condition. It also notes that it replaces 4–6 sequential calls, indicating when it should be used as a shortcut. However, it does not name alternative tools or provide explicit when-not-to-use guidance, so it stops short of a full 5.

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

All Guidetopharmacology 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

A3.6/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Many tools have overlapping purposes, such as multiple ask_pipeworx variants (ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded) that differ only subtly, and a large set of prediction market tools (bet_research, polymarket_arbitrage, polymarket_edges, etc.) that can be easily confused. Entity tools like entity_profile, recent_changes, and compare_entities also overlap significantly. An agent would struggle to pick the right tool without careful reading.

Naming Consistency2/5

Tool names mix snake_case (ask_pipeworx, deep_research, forget) and descriptive phrases without a consistent verb_noun pattern. Some start with verbs (compare, generate, scan) while others are nouns or compound phrases (pipeworx_trending, polymarket_fill_risk). This inconsistency makes it hard to predict tool names.

Tool Count2/5

With 35 tools, this MCP server is overly large and covers many diverse domains (data querying, prediction markets, pharmacology, npm scanning, brand visibility, etc.). Typically, a well-scoped server has 5-15 tools; 35 is excessive and suggests a lack of focus, making it unwieldy for an agent to manage.

Completeness2/5

Despite the large number of tools, the server has notable gaps. For example, the pharmacology section only offers search and interaction tools but no create/update/delete. The memory tools are limited to save/recall/forget. Many meta-tools (discover_tools, suggest_questions) exist but add little substance. The server covers many domains superficially rather than providing full lifecycle coverage for any one domain.

Resources