Skip to main content
Glama

Hgnc

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

A4.4/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

With annotations indicating read-only, open-world, idempotent behavior, the description adds critical behavioral context: the meaning of could_not_verify vs unsupported (including that could_not_verify is not evidence), the two pipeline paths, and the fact that it replaces multiple sequential calls. This significantly exceeds what the annotations declare.

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 relatively long but every sentence carries information: usage examples, the two-path routing, verdict options, and error semantics. It is front-loaded with the trigger phrases and purpose, and no filler.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description adequately explains the return value: a verdict, the actual value with citation, and reasoning, plus the special meanings of could_not_verify and unsupported. It covers input, behavior, and important caveats, making it complete for its complexity.

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?

The schema already provides 100% coverage, including a detailed description of claim and tolerance_pct. The tool description does not add additional parameter-specific semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 natural-language claim verification against authoritative sources, with examples of user phrasings and a specific output (verdict). It distinguishes itself from generic research tools by describing the two-path routing and the composite nature of the call.

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 'Use whenever the agent needs to check whether something a user said is factually correct', which gives clear when-to-use. It also distinguishes between company-financial and other claims. However, it does not name alternative sibling tools or state when not to use it beyond that context.

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

All Hgnc 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
Disambiguation3/5

Tools are mostly distinct but several ask_pipeworx variants and research tools overlap in purpose, which could lead to agent confusion. The presence of memory and subscription tools adds unrelated functionality.

Naming Consistency2/5

Naming is inconsistent, mixing snake_case with varying verb patterns (ask, get, search, scan, etc.) and no clear convention. Some tools have descriptive phrases (e.g., generate_llms_txt) further breaking consistency.

Tool Count2/5

34 tools is excessive for a coherent server, covering too many disparate domains (genes, data queries, betting, memory) without clear focus. A gene server should have far fewer tools.

Completeness3/5

Gene-related tools are complete for basic queries (search, get, resolve), but the server's main purpose (HGNC) is overshadowed by many unrelated Pipeworx tools, creating a mismatch. The overall surface is broad but lacks domain focus.

Resources