Skip to main content
Glama

Legislation Uk

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.

TDQS

A5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations provide readOnly/openWorld/idempotent, but the description adds critical behavior beyond them: the meaning of 'could_not_verify' (the check did not happen, must not be treated as evidence) and 'unsupported' (looked but no source). It also discloses the mechanism (verbatim evidence, pipeworx:// citation) and the judgment step. This is exactly the behavioral context agents need and goes well beyond structured hints.

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 long but every sentence adds unique value: trigger phrases, routing behavior, verdict list, special case warnings, and performance benefit. It is front-loaded with usage signals and structured with clear topic shifts. No filler or repetition.

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 fully covers return values (all possible verdicts), the grounded/or structured actual value with citation, reasoning, and the error payload for could_not_verify. It also addresses edge cases (unsupported vs cannot verify) and the operational context (replaces multiple calls). This is complete for a complex tool with two parameters.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters5/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Though schema coverage is 100%, the description significantly enhances parameter meaning. It explains that tolerance_pct overrides the wording-implied tolerance, gives concrete guidance (1–2 for hallucination detection), and notes the default cap of 5. The claim parameter is clarified with natural-language examples, reinforcing the schema without redundancy.

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 explicit trigger phrases and a clear verb+resource: natural-language claim verification against authoritative sources. It distinguishes itself from siblings by describing the SEC EDGAR/XBRL fast path versus the grounded pipeline, and notes it replaces 4–6 sequential calls, making its unique role unmistakable.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

States explicitly to use whenever the agent needs to check whether something a user said is factually correct. It further disambiguates by routing company-financial claims through the structured path and all other claims through the grounded pipeline, giving the agent a complete decision rule with no ambiguity.

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

All Legislation Uk 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

A3.8/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

The legislation-specific tools are distinct, but the server bundles dozens of unrelated Pipeworx/prediction-market/AI-visibility tools, making the set's purpose unclear. Several near-identical pairs exist: ask_pipeworx and ask_pipeworx_beta are explicitly identical right now, and ai_visibility_check overlaps heavily with scan_competitor_ai_presence. An agent would struggle to know which tool is the right entry point.

Naming Consistency2/5

Naming is mixed: snake_case dominates, but camelCase appears in ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_grounded, generate_llms_txt, and pipeworx_feedback. There is also inconsistency in verb style — get_/search_/list_ coexist with bare verbs like remember, recall, forget, and subscribe. The legislation tools themselves follow a clean get_legislation* pattern, but the wider set does not.

Tool Count2/5

35 tools is too many for a server named 'Legislation Uk' where only 4 tools actually relate to UK legislation. The remaining 31 tools appear to belong to a broader data/prediction-market platform, which suggests severe scope creep or a mislabeled assembly. This bloats the surface area and makes the server harder for an agent to navigate.

Completeness4/5

For the stated UK-legislation purpose, the core read-and-search workflow is covered: search_legislation, get_legislation, get_legislation_section, and get_legislation_text together support discovery, metadata, targeted section lookup, and full-text retrieval with version selection. Obvious gaps remain, such as full-text content search and amendment/change history, but agents can complete the primary task of finding and reading legislation. The unrelated tools neither help nor complete this domain.

Resources