Skip to main content
Glama

Hathitrust

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

A4.4/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The description goes far beyond annotations by explaining the internal pipeline (SEC EDGAR fast path vs. grounded pipeline), the exact verdict types, and the crucial semantics of 'could_not_verify' vs. 'unsupported.' It discloses that 'could_not_verify' is not evidence, which is critical behavioral context that annotations cannot convey.

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 quite long but front-loaded with trigger phrases and purpose. Every sentence adds value, covering usage, output, and error semantics. It is structured well but could have been slightly more concise without losing critical 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?

Given the tool's complexity and absence of an output schema, the description thoroughly explains all necessary aspects: when to use, how claims are routed, expected outputs, and edge-case semantics. It fully compensates for the lack of an output schema by detailing verdicts, citations, and error handling.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add parameter-specific details beyond what the schema already provides; the examples in the schema are equally informative. However, the description does add behavioral context about how different claim types are processed, which indirectly guides parameter usage.

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 states the tool's purpose: natural-language claim verification against authoritative sources, with specific trigger phrases and a defined scope. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by emphasizing fact-checking of user statements and the claim that it replaces multiple 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,' which provides clear usage context. It also outlines two distinct paths (company financial vs. other claims), but it does not explicitly name alternatives or list when not to use the tool, leaving some ambiguity.

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

All Hathitrust 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

The tool set mixes tools from multiple unrelated domains (HathiTrust, Pipeworx data platform, Polymarket, npm, etc.), making it unclear which tool to use for a given task. Overlap exists between ask_pipeworx and ask_pipeworx_grounded, and between several Polymarket tools, while the HathiTrust-specific tools are few and buried among many others, causing confusion.

Naming Consistency2/5

Naming conventions are inconsistent across the tool set. Some tools use verb_noun (check_full_view, lookup_by_identifier), others use noun_verb (entity_profile, deep_research), and some are single verbs (forget, remember, subscribe). There is no predictable pattern, making it harder for an agent to guess tool names.

Tool Count1/5

With 33 tools, the count is high, but only 3 (get_record, lookup_by_identifier, check_full_view) are relevant to the server's stated purpose (HathiTrust). The remaining 30 tools appear to be from unrelated domains (Pipeworx data platform, Polymarket, npm, etc.), making the tool count severely mismatched with the server name.

Completeness2/5

For the HathiTrust domain, the tool surface is severely incomplete: only three basic lookup tools with no search, browse, or management capabilities. The broader set includes tools for many other domains, but that does not compensate for the lack of coverage of the server's primary purpose.

Resources