Skip to main content
Glama

jokes

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

A4.4/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the read-only/idempotent annotations, the description discloses crucial behavioral details: the verdict categories, the meaning of could_not_verify (check did not happen, carries verification_error, must not be shown as evidence), the distinction from unsupported, and the fact that it 'Replaces 4–6 sequential calls.' This is exactly the kind of context an agent needs to correctly interpret results and avoid misusing the tool. 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 relatively long but well-structured: trigger phrases, purpose, routing logic, return values, important caller warning, and efficiency note. Each section serves a distinct purpose. It could be trimmed slightly (e.g., the trigger phrases are somewhat redundant with the title), but the organization is logical and front-loaded with the most essential usage cue ('Use whenever...').

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 tool's complexity and the absence of an output schema, the description thoroughly covers what a caller needs: input types, the two processing paths, the full verdict list, return structure (grounded/structured value with citation and reasoning), and the critical caveat about could_not_verify vs unsupported. This is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly without additional context.

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% — both 'claim' and 'tolerance_pct' have descriptive schema entries with examples. The tool description adds minimal parameter-specific detail (it mentions 'exact percent-delta math' but doesn't elaborate on the tolerance_pct parameter's semantics beyond what the schema already says). With such high schema coverage, a baseline 3 is appropriate; the description does not meaningfully enhance parameter understanding.

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 trigger phrases ('Is it true that…', 'fact check', 'verify the claim that…') and then clearly states the function: 'natural-language claim verification against authoritative sources.' This is a specific verb+resource that directly distinguishes it from sibling tools like ask_pipeworx or compare_entities. It also explains the two verification paths (SEC EDGAR for financial claims, grounded pipeline for others), leaving no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 gives explicit guidance: 'Use whenever the agent needs to check whether something a user said is factually correct.' It also details the sub-routing for company-financial vs. other claims, which implies when to expect different behaviors. However, it does not name any alternative tools or explicitly state when NOT to use this tool (e.g., versus ask_pipeworx_grounded), so it's clear but lacks explicit exclusion/alternative references.

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

All jokes 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

B3.3/5.0
Disambiguation1/5

The server contains 4 joke-related tools and 31 tools from the Pipeworx data ecosystem, which are entirely unrelated. An agent cannot easily distinguish whether to use a joke tool or a data tool, causing extreme ambiguity.

Naming Consistency2/5

Tool names within the joke subset (e.g., get_joke, search_jokes) and Pipeworx subset (e.g., ask_pipeworx, entity_profile) are individually consistent, but the overall set has no unified naming pattern or domain signal, making the server's purpose unclear.

Tool Count1/5

With 35 tools, the count is excessive for a jokes-themed server. Only 4 tools are joke-related; the remaining 31 belong to a completely different domain, making the tool count highly inappropriate.

Completeness1/5

The joke coverage (get, search, categories, flags) is minimal but functional. However, the server as a whole is a Frankenstein of unrelated domains, lacking a coherent surface. The overwhelming majority of tools are irrelevant to the server name.

Resources