Skip to main content
Glama

Huggingface

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

A4.5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Even with annotations declaring read-only, open-world, and idempotent behavior, the description adds substantial behavioral detail: the SEC EDGAR/XBRL fast path vs. grounded pipeline, the exact verdict list, the presence of pipeworx:// citations, the meaning of could_not_verify and unsupported, and the number of sequential calls it replaces. This gives the agent a strong mental model of what happens under the hood.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is dense but every sentence earns its place: trigger phrases, use case, routing logic, return format, critical error semantics, and efficiency benefits. It is front-loaded with user-facing phrasing and scales logically from purpose to pipeline to output, with no fluff or redundancy.

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 only two parameters, good annotations, and no output schema, the description nonetheless covers what the agent needs: verdicts, actual value with citation, reasoning, and how to handle edge cases (could_not_verify vs. unsupported). It also explains the tool's internal fallback behavior, making it complete for a complex natural-language verification tool.

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 input schema already provides 100% coverage for both parameters with detailed descriptions (e.g., tolerance_pct default, overrides, and hallucination-detection use case). The description adds high-level context such as 'exact percent-delta math' and 'tolerance implied by the claim wording', but it does not materially expand on what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 explicit user-intent triggers ('fact check', 'verify the claim that…', 'true or false') and clearly states it is 'natural-language claim verification against authoritative sources'. It also states when to use it: 'whenever the agent needs to check whether something a user said is factually correct', which distinguishes it from general-purpose 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?

The description provides a clear 'Use whenever' directive and explains the internal routing for company-financial vs. other factual claims. It also gives important caller instructions about could_not_verify and unsupported, but it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when NOT to use this tool, leaving exclusions implicit.

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

All Huggingface 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

A3.5/5.0
Disambiguation3/5

The tool set includes many similarly-named tools, especially the 'ask_pipeworx' variants and the multiple polymarket tools, which could cause confusion. However, each tool has a detailed description specifying its unique purpose, so an agent reading carefully can distinguish them.

Naming Consistency2/5

Naming is inconsistent across the set: Huggingface tools use 'get_', 'list_', 'search_' prefixes, while Pipeworx tools use varied verbs like 'ask_pipeworx', 'bet_research', 'entity_profile', and others. There is no overall pattern or convention, making it harder to predict tool names.

Tool Count2/5

With 41 tools, the server is heavily loaded. While each tool has a distinct role, the scope combines two large domains (Huggingface and Pipeworx), leading to a tool count well above the typical 3-15 range for a focused server.

Completeness3/5

The server covers a wide range of functionalities: Huggingface model/dataset queries, Pipeworx data lookups, subscription management, and memory tools. However, it lacks write operations for Huggingface (e.g., uploading models/datasets) and some lifecycle operations, leaving noticeable gaps.

Resources