Skip to main content
Glama

Hurricanes

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?

Annotations provide readOnly/openWorld/idempotent/non-destructive hints. The description adds critical context beyond these: the meaning of 'could_not_verify' as a failure mode with verification_error, the distinction between 'unsupported' and 'could_not_verify', and the internal routing behavior. No contradiction with 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 lengthy but dense; every sentence serves a purpose—examples, use cases, pipeline explanation, return values, and critical caveats. It front-loads with natural-language triggers and ends with important caller warnings. Slightly verbose but justified for the tool's complexity.

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 covers return values: six verdicts, actual value with pipeworx:// citation, and reasoning. It also explains error semantics (could_not_verify) and unsupported cases. Combined with rich annotations and complete schema coverage, nothing essential is missing.

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% with detailed descriptions for both parameters (claim and tolerance_pct). The tool description does not add new parameter semantics beyond the schema; it only indirectly references the tolerance via 'exact percent-delta math.' 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 clearly states the tool's function: natural-language claim verification against authoritative sources, with a specific verb ('verify', 'fact check') and resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on checking factual claims and describes a structured pipeline for company-financial claims versus a grounded fallback for all others.

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 says 'Use whenever the agent needs to check whether something a user said is factually correct,' and explains when the structured vs. grounded path applies. It also notes it replaces 4–6 sequential calls, implying an efficiency motive. It does not explicitly name alternatives to avoid, but the guidance is strong.

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

All Hurricanes 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

A4.1/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools have distinct purposes with clear descriptions, but ask_pipeworx_beta is nearly identical to ask_pipeworx, and the presence of several meta-tools may cause slight confusion. Overall, an agent can differentiate most tools.

Naming Consistency4/5

Tool names consistently use lowercase_with_underscores and follow an action_domain pattern (e.g., validate_claim, scan_competitor_ai_presence). There is a mix of verb-noun and noun-verb, but the pattern is predictable and readable.

Tool Count3/5

33 tools is on the higher end, but given the broad scope (finance, drugs, prediction markets, data retrieval, memory), the count is reasonable. However, the server name 'Hurricanes' suggests a narrower focus, making the count feel excessive for that domain.

Completeness4/5

The tool set covers a wide range of data domains and includes meta-tools for discovery, grounded answers, and subscriptions. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no non-US company data), but overall the surface is comprehensive for a general-purpose data server.

Resources