Skip to main content
Glama

Interpro

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

A4.1/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The description adds significant value beyond the annotations by explaining critical behavioral nuances: 'could_not_verify' means the check did not happen and must not be used as evidence, while 'unsupported' means no source covers the claim. This context prevents misuse and would not be inferred from annotations alone.

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 average but front-loaded with trigger phrases and a clear statement of purpose. It is well-structured with sections for usage, return values, and caveats. Every sentence adds information, though a touch more brevity might be possible.

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 absence of an output schema, the description fully explains the return envelope (verdict, actual value, citation, reasoning) and covers edge cases like verification errors and unsupported claims. It also clarifies the tool's ability to replace multiple sequential calls, making it self-sufficient.

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 `claim` and `tolerance_pct`. The description does not add parameter-specific semantics, but the baseline for full schema coverage is 3, and the description's overview of the two verification paths provides useful context.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly identifies the tool as a claim-verification resource with specific trigger phrases like 'fact check' and 'verify the claim that…'. It distinguishes itself from general search/research tools by focusing on factual validation with verdicts and citations, though it does not explicitly name sibling 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?

Explicitly states 'Use whenever the agent needs to check whether something a user said is factually correct' and provides examples. It also describes internal routing (financial vs. other claims) but does not mention alternative tools or exclusion criteria, so it falls short of full when/not guidance.

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

All Interpro 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

Several tool clusters have fuzzy boundaries: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research, discover_tools, and suggest_questions all overlap on 'find and query data,' while the five polymarket_* tools plus bet_research form a heavily overlapping prediction-market cluster. The three genuine InterPro tools are clear, but an agent would frequently struggle to pick the right meta-tool.

Naming Consistency3/5

Most tools follow a readable snake_case verb-first pattern like compare_entities, resolve_entity, and validate_claim. However, bare verbs (remember, forget, recall), product-prefixed nouns (pipeworx_feedback, pipeworx_trending), and variant suffixes (ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded) break the pattern enough to feel inconsistent.

Tool Count2/5

34 tools is well above the typical well-scoped range, and many tools duplicate or partially overlap each other's functionality. The count is further inflated by unrelated domains—AI visibility, prediction markets, memory, subscriptions, package auditing—bundled into a server nominally named 'Interpro.'

Completeness2/5

The InterPro subset (search_entries, get_entry, entries_for_protein) is minimal and lacks obvious protein/proteome-level operations, while the rest of the server covers so many unrelated domains that no single domain has clear end-to-end coverage. The Pipeworx query side is broad, but the overall surface feels like several incomplete toolsets merged rather than one complete product.

Resources