Skip to main content
Glama

Lobsters

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 readOnlyHint/idempotentHint annotations, the description discloses the critical behavioral nuance that 'could_not_verify' means the check did not happen and must not be treated as evidence, including the verification_error{stage,detail} payload. It also explains 'unsupported' as meaning no source covers the claim. This is rich, non-obvious behavioral context that plain annotations cannot convey.

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 long but well-structured: opening examples, usage, behavioral rules, and a clear callout for the critical 'could_not_verify' edge case. Every sentence adds value. The 'Replaces 4–6 sequential calls' line is a minor nicety but not essential; slight trimming could improve conciseness without losing information.

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?

Despite having no output schema, the description thoroughly explains the return value structure: verdicts (all six), the grounded or structured actual value with citation, reasoning, and the error object for failed checks. It covers the two routing paths and distinguishes ambiguous verdicts. For a complex tool with 2 parameters and no output schema, this description is exceptionally complete.

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 description coverage is 100%, so both 'claim' and 'tolerance_pct' are adequately documented in the schema. The description does not add any additional parameter-level semantics beyond what the schema already states; it merely references claim types and tolerance indirectly. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema handles parameter explanation fully.

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 example queries ('Is it true that...', 'fact check', 'verify the claim...') and a clear verb+resource: natural-language claim verification against authoritative sources. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on fact-checking with a verdict, and enumerates the two internal paths (SEC EDGAR for financial, grounded pipeline for everything else). This makes the purpose unmistakable.

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 states 'Use whenever the agent needs to check whether something a user said is factually correct.' This gives clear when-to-use guidance. It also explains the two sub-paths (financial vs. any other claim), but it does not name alternatives or provide when-not-to-use exclusions relative to sibling tools like ask_pipeworx_grounded. Hence 4 rather than 5.

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

All Lobsters 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

Many tools have overlapping purposes, e.g., three tools for querying Pipeworx data (ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research), and six tools for Polymarket prediction markets. The boundaries between them are unclear, causing potential for misselection.

Naming Consistency3/5

Tool names are all snake_case but follow inconsistent patterns: some use verb_noun (get_hottest, get_newest), some are single verbs (remember, forget), and others are noun_noun (bet_research, polymarket_arbitrage). While readable, the lack of a consistent pattern adds confusion.

Tool Count2/5

With 34 tools, the server is overloaded, especially given its name 'Lobsters' suggests a focus on that site, yet only 4 tools are Lobsters-related. The majority belong to Pipeworx, Polymarket, and generic utilities, making the scope extremely broad and unfocused.

Completeness2/5

For the implied domain of Lobsters, the tool set is incomplete (missing create/update/delete). For the broader domains (Pipeworx, Polymarket), the set is extensive but doesn't align with the server's name. The lack of a coherent domain leaves obvious gaps relative to any single purpose.

Resources