Skip to main content
Glama

Ipify

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

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Despite annotations already marking read-only/idempotent behavior, the description adds substantial detail: the SEC EDGAR/XBRL fast path, the grounded pipeline fallback, the full verdict list, and the critical warning that could_not_verify means the check did not happen and is not evidence. This is far beyond what annotations convey.

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. It opens with natural-language examples, then covers when to use, the two routing paths, return values, important caveats, and efficiency—all organized with clear highlighting for critical warnings.

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 no output schema, the description thoroughly explains return values (verdict, actual value, citation, reasoning) and edge-case semantics (could_not_verify, unsupported). This makes it self-contained for an agent to invoke and interpret results correctly.

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?

The schema already provides detailed descriptions for both parameters (100% coverage), and the tool description adds extra context about how the claim is routed (financial vs. other) and the exact percent-delta math used for tolerance_pct. This adds value beyond the schema without repeating it.

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 what the tool does: natural-language claim verification against authoritative sources, with example phrases like 'fact check' and 'verify the claim that…'. It distinguishes itself from sibling Q&A tools by describing the specific verdict output and the two execution paths.

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 explicitly says when to use it ('Use whenever the agent needs to check whether something a user said is factually correct') and explains the routing for financial vs. other claims. However, it does not name alternative tools or give explicit when-not-to-use scenarios, so it lacks a full 5.

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

All Ipify 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

Multiple tools overlap conceptually, e.g., ask_pipeworx / ask_pipeworx_beta / ask_pipeworx_grounded / deep_research all perform data retrieval, and bet_research / polymarket_edges / polymarket_arbitrage cover prediction markets with unclear boundaries. This overlap forces agents to carefully read descriptions to pick the right tool.

Naming Consistency3/5

Naming is mostly snake_case but inconsistent in pattern: some are verb_noun (compare_entities), some are noun_verb (ai_visibility_check), and some are bare nouns (ipv4) or bare verbs (forget). While readable, the lack of a uniform pattern reduces predictability.

Tool Count2/5

33 tools is high for a single server, especially given the server name 'Ipify' which implies a simple IP lookup service. The broad range (from memory ops to prediction market analysis) suggests the tool set is a collection of utilities rather than a coherent, scoped API.

Completeness2/5

The tool set lacks focus: for a server named 'Ipify', basic IP geolocation or ASN lookup is missing. As a general toolkit, it covers many areas superficially but has significant gaps (e.g., no tools for updating or deleting data, no domain-specific lifecycle).

Resources