Skip to main content
Glama

Lichess

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 the annotations (readOnly, openWorld, idempotent), the description discloses key behaviors: the two distinct pipelines (SEC EDGAR fast path vs grounded pipeline), the verdict set, and the critical distinction between 'could_not_verify' (a failure, not evidence) and 'unsupported' (no source). It also warns callers against misinterpreting 'could_not_verify', which is valuable behavioral context.

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 longer than minimal but well-structured: starts with user-phrasing examples, then purpose, routing, return values, and an important caller note. Every sentence adds value; the length is justified by the tool's complexity, especially the need to clarify failure semantics. It could be tightened slightly but is efficient.

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 there is no output schema, the description fully explains what the tool returns (verdicts, actual value, citation, reasoning) and covers failure modes. It also explains the internal routing logic and integration points (SEC EDGAR, grounded pipeline), making it self-sufficient for the agent to understand the tool's behavior and output.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, but the description adds meaning beyond the schema. It explains how 'tolerance_pct' overrides the claim's implied tolerance, gives a use case (hallucination detection with 1–2), and states the default behavior ('capped at 5'). The claim examples also illustrate expected input format.

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 the tool's purpose: natural-language claim verification against authoritative sources, with example phrasings like 'fact check' and 'verify the claim that…'. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on fact-checking and returning verdicts, and explicitly mentions replacing 4–6 sequential calls.

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?

It explicitly says 'Use whenever the agent needs to check whether something a user said is factually correct,' providing a clear trigger. It also gives nuanced guidance on interpreting 'could_not_verify' and 'unsupported', and explains the routing based on claim type (company-financial vs any other), effectively defining when this tool is appropriate.

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

All Lichess 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
Disambiguation2/5

The server mixes chess tools with numerous data query tools from Pipeworx, causing significant overlap. Multiple ask_pipeworx variants (ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded) and deep_research have similar purposes, making it difficult for an agent to choose correctly. Chess tools are distinct but compete with many unrelated tools.

Naming Consistency2/5

Tool names follow no consistent pattern: chess tools use mostly underscores (top_players, opening_explorer), Pipeworx tools use mixed styles (ask_pipeworx, deep_research, entity_profile), and memory/subscription tools use simple verbs (remember, subscribe). The naming is inconsistent across the set.

Tool Count2/5

With 41 tools, the count is high and unfocused. A chess server would typically have 10-15 tools; the remaining 31 tools from Pipeworx are unrelated and overwhelm the set. The server tries to cover too many domains, making it bloated for its primary purpose.

Completeness2/5

The chess-specific tools (10) cover basic queries but lack deeper chess analysis (e.g., puzzles, board evaluation). The extensive Pipeworx tools are out of scope for a Lichess server, resulting in an incomplete surface for the expected domain and an excessive surface for unrelated data lookups.

Resources