Skip to main content
Glama

Hud

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

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, and non-destructive, and the description adds substantial behavioral context beyond that: the exact verdict enum with definitions, the distinction between 'could_not_verify' (did not happen, carries error object) and 'unsupported' (no source coverage), and the automatic routing logic. This is highly valuable transparency for callers, with no contradiction to annotations.

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 longer than usual but every sentence earns its place: examples, dual-path explanation, return contract, and critical error semantics. It front-loads with user intents, making the purpose immediately clear. It is not overly verbose for the complexity of the tool, though it could be slightly tightened.

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?

With no output schema, the description fully conveys the return value structure (verdict enum, grounded/structured value with citation, reasoning) and the special handling of failure modes. It explains both routing branches and the replacement of multi-step calls, giving the agent a complete mental model for successful invocation and response interpretation.

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?

Input schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, giving a baseline of 3. The description adds meaningful nuance for tolerance_pct (overrides wording-implied tolerance, recommended for hallucination detection) and clarifies claim as natural-language input with examples. This goes beyond mere schema repetition, so a 4 is warranted.

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 claim verification against authoritative sources, with explicit natural-language examples and a precise verb-resource pairing ('verify' + 'factual claims'). It distinguishes itself from siblings by describing the two-path execution (SEC EDGAR for financials, grounded pipeline otherwise) and by stating it replaces 4–6 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?

Explicitly states when to use: 'Use whenever the agent needs to check whether something a user said is factually correct.' It also differentiates between company-financial claims and all other factual claims, routing to different pipelines. However, it does not name specific sibling tools as alternatives or state when not to use it, so it falls short of fully explicit exclusion guidance.

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

All Hud 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

A3.9/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools have distinct purposes, but several query tools (ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research, entity_profile, compare_entities, validate_claim) overlap in functionality, which could confuse an agent. The Polymarket and HUD subgroups are well-separated.

Naming Consistency3/5

Tool names use multiple styles: verb_noun (ask_pipeworx), prefixed groups (hud_*, polymarket_*, pipeworx_*), and standalone verbs (forget, recall). While subgroups are consistent, the overall set lacks a uniform pattern.

Tool Count3/5

With 35 tools, the server offers broad data and analytics capabilities. The count is on the high side but justified by the range of features (HUD, general queries, prediction markets, memory, subscriptions). Some tools are highly specialized.

Completeness4/5

The tool surface covers housing data, multi-source querying, prediction markets, memory, subscriptions, and meta-tools. Minor gaps exist (e.g., deeper user account management), but core workflows are well-supported.

Resources