Skip to main content
Glama

Libretranslate

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

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond annotations (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint), the description discloses internal routing logic, the special meaning of could_not_verify (with verification_error{stage,detail}), and warns callers not to treat it as evidence. It also clarifies unsupported means no source exists. This is rich behavioral context beyond structured fields.

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 well-organized: triggers, purpose, routing, return values, error handling. Every sentence adds operational value; no filler. It front-loads purpose and usage while later sections provide necessary caveats, making it easy to scan and digest.

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?

With no output schema, the description covers all essential return elements: verdicts, actual value with citation, reasoning, and validation_error object. It explains the two special verdicts to prevent misuse. Given the tool's multi-pipeline complexity, this description is complete enough for correct invocation.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, but the description adds significant meaning to tolerance_pct: it overrides implied tolerance, defaults to 5% cap, and recommends 1–2% for hallucination detection. It also ties the parameter to 'exact percent-delta math,' which the schema alone does not convey.

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 natural-language trigger examples and states the exact function: 'natural-language claim verification against authoritative sources.' It distinguishes from siblings by noting it 'Replaces 4–6 sequential calls' and routes claim types via distinct pipelines (SEC EDGAR vs grounded). This is a specific verb+resource with clear differentiation.

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 explicitly says 'Use whenever the agent needs to check whether something a user said is factually correct,' and provides context for company-financial vs other claims, plus error semantics. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, so it misses the full 'when-not/alternatives' criterion for a 5.

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

All Libretranslate 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 heavily overlapping purposes: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, and deep_research all route questions to the same underlying Pipeworx catalog, and the five polymarket_* tools all analyze prediction-market opportunities and edge. While the individual descriptions are detailed, an agent could easily select the wrong tool without deep reading, particularly between ask_pipeworx and its beta/variant versions.

Naming Consistency2/5

The naming style is a mixture of imperative verb phrases (translate, validate_claim, forget, generate_llms_txt), noun phrases (entity_profile, recent_alerts, polymarket_arbitrage), and brand-prefixed nouns (ask_pipeworx, pipeworx_trending, bet_research). While all names are lowercase with underscores, there is no consistent verb_noun or domain-prefix convention across the toolset, making the API feel grab-bag rather than designed.

Tool Count1/5

The server is named 'Libretranslate' — a translation service that needs only translate, detect_language, and list_languages — yet it exposes 34 tools spanning data research, prediction markets, memory storage, subscriptions, dependency scanning, AI-visibility probing, and llms.txt generation. This is an extreme scope mismatch: the overwhelming majority of tools serve completely unrelated functions that have nothing to do with the server's apparent purpose.

Completeness2/5

If judged purely as a translation server, the core surface is present but thin: translate, detect_language, and list_languages cover basic use, though there are no batch, format, or language-details options. If judged as the broader heterogeneous toolset, the domain is incoherent — no single workstream is fully covered, and the unrelated tools (Polymarket betting, Pipeworx research, memory, subscriptions) create a muddled surface with obvious gaps in any single stated purpose.

Resources