Skip to main content
Glama

ipinfo

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

A4.5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the annotations (read-only, open-world, idempotent), the description discloses critical behavior: the exact verdict vocabulary, the semantic distinction between 'could_not_verify' (failure) and 'unsupported' (no source), the presence of verification_error details, and the structured vs grounded pipeline routing. These details materially help callers interpret results correctly.

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 front-loads natural-language trigger phrases and a clear use case, then moves through pipeline routing, return values, and important edge-case warnings. Every sentence carries distinct useful information, and the length is justified by 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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the full burden of explaining returns—it lists all verdicts, citations, and reasoning, and explains error semantics. The tool's routing and fallback behavior are also described, making the description sufficient for correct invocation and interpretation.

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 covers both parameters with 100% description coverage, including tolerance_pct examples and semantics. The tool description adds context about percent-delta math for financial claims but does not need to repeat the schema, so the baseline 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 uses specific verbs ('validate', 'fact check', 'verify the claim') and identifies the resource as natural-language claims against authoritative sources. It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling research tools by framing a single compound pipeline that replaces sequential NL parsing, entity resolution, data lookup, and comparison.

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?

It gives explicit when-to-use guidance ('Use whenever the agent needs to check whether something a user said is factually correct') and explains routing for company-financial vs other claims. However, it does not explicitly name alternative sibling tools as when-not-to-use options, so it falls short of 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 ipinfo 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 tools have overlapping purposes: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, and deep_research all answer data questions; polymarket_arbitrage, polymarket_edges, and polymarket_edge_tracker all scan prediction markets. Despite long descriptions, an agent could easily select the wrong one, especially the currently identical ask_pipeworx and ask_pipeworx_beta.

Naming Consistency3/5

Mostly snake_case, but with inconsistent patterns: get_my_ip/lookup_ip use verb_noun, entity_profile/recent_changes are noun phrases, remember/recall/forget are bare verbs, and the polymarket_* tools share a brand-prefixed noun style. Readable but not a predictable, uniform convention.

Tool Count2/5

At 33 tools, the server is overloaded, far exceeding the 25-tool threshold for 'too many.' It combines two unrelated identities—the original ipinfo IP lookup and the massive Pipeworx data/research platform—making the toolset heavy and harder for an agent to navigate efficiently.

Completeness4/5

The tool surface provides strong coverage of the data query and research lifecycle: discovery (discover_tools, suggest_questions), entity resolution (resolve_entity), lookup (ask_pipeworx, entity_profile), verification (validate_claim, ask_pipeworx_grounded), and post-processing (search_within, recent_changes). Minor gaps exist—for example, no dedicated 'get SEC filing by accession' tool or single-purpose financials endpoint—but these are workaroundable via the routing tools.

Resources