Skip to main content
Glama

Lyrics Ovh

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, idempotent, non-destructive), the description discloses behavioral traits: it returns a defined set of verdicts, includes a pipeworx:// citation, and crucially explains that could_not_verify means the check did not happen and must not be treated as evidence. This is a critical caveat beyond any annotation. It also notes the fall-through pipeline and structured fast path.

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-structured: trigger phrases first, then purpose, routing, output format, and a clearly marked 'IMPORTANT' callout. No filler sentences; every part earns its place given the tool's complexity.

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 fully covers return values (verdicts, actual value, citation, reasoning) and handles edge cases explicitly (could_not_verify vs unsupported). It also explains the two execution paths, making it sufficiently complete for an agent to use correctly.

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?

The description adds meaning to both parameters: it gives examples of natural-language claims and explains the role of tolerance_pct in grading and hallucination detection. This goes beyond the schema descriptions, which are already detailed.

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 it performs 'natural-language claim verification against authoritative sources' with specific trigger examples and a distinct resource (the claim). It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools by noting it replaces 4–6 sequential calls, making its purpose unambiguous.

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 details routing for company-financial vs other claims. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclusions, so it stops short of full when-not guidance.

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

All Lyrics Ovh 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

A4/5.0
Disambiguation3/5

Several tools have overlapping purposes. ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, and ask_pipeworx_grounded all route to the same 5,564 tools, differing only in grounding behavior. suggest and lyrics both look up music but in different ways; suggest is broader while lyrics is exact. The core tools are distinct, but the multiple pipeworx variants and music tools create ambiguity.

Naming Consistency2/5

Naming is highly inconsistent. Most tools use snake_case (ask_pipeworx, entity_profile, compare_entities), but several use verb phrases (generate_llms_txt, scan_competitor_ai_presence) and some use short nouns (lyrics, suggest). There's no consistent verb_noun pattern; 'ask_pipeworx' variants mix imperative with domain words, and 'recall'/'remember' are verbs without objects.

Tool Count4/5

With 33 tools, the server covers a wide domain (company research, prediction markets, news, weather, lyrics, memory, subscriptions, etc.). While this is many tools, each has a specific purpose and the variety matches the stated 'universal router' / 'thousands of data sources' value prop. It could be trimmed slightly, but the count is justified by the breadth.

Completeness5/5

The tool surface is remarkably complete for its stated purpose: unstructured lookup (ask_pipeworx), grounded verification (ask_pipeworx_grounded), deep multi-source research (deep_research), entity profiles, comparisons, change feeds, arbitrage scanning, memory, subscriptions, and even feedback/governance tools. It covers all common patterns in data retrieval and has distinct tools for edge cases, making it hard to find obvious gaps.

Resources