Skip to main content
Glama

Mailchimp

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?

Annotations already indicate read-only, open-world, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds crucial failure semantics: 'could_not_verify means the check did not happen... must not be shown as one' and 'unsupported means we looked and cover no source for it.' It also discloses the dual pipeline behavior and return format, going well beyond the annotations.

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 front-loaded with natural-language example triggers, then states purpose, usage, and key behavioral warnings. It's a bit long, but every sentence adds meaningful information for a complex tool. The structure is logical and scannable.

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?

For a tool with only 2 parameters and no output schema, the description fully explains return values (verdict, actual value, reasoning, citation), error semantics, and the two processing paths. It also clarifies the scope of 'unsupported' and 'could_not_verify'. No gaps remain for an agent to invoke or interpret results.

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% with detailed field descriptions for 'claim' and 'tolerance_pct'. The description mentions 'exact percent-delta math' and 'approximately_correct', which reinforces the tolerance semantics, but the schema already carries the parameter meaning. Thus baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 uses specific verbs like 'verify' and 'validate' with a clear resource ('claim') and method ('against authoritative sources'). It distinguishes from siblings by explaining it replaces 4–6 sequential calls and covers two distinct pipeline paths (SEC EDGAR for financial claims, grounded for anything else).

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?

The description explicitly says 'Use whenever the agent needs to check whether something a user said is factually correct,' which clearly establishes when to invoke. It also explains the breakdown between financial and non-financial claims, though it does not discuss alternatives or exclusions relative to sibling tools.

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

All Mailchimp 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

B3.4/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Several tools are near-duplicates: ask_pipeworx and ask_pipeworx_beta are currently identical, and discover_tools overlaps heavily with suggest_questions. The six Polymarket tools (bet_research, polymarket_edges, polymarket_arbitrage, etc.) have fuzzy boundaries that will mislead an agent choosing among them.

Naming Consistency3/5

Most names are snake_case, but patterns vary: verb_noun (list_subscriptions, validate_claim), adjective_noun (recent_alerts, recent_changes), bare verbs (remember, recall, forget), and domain-prefixed tools (ask_pipeworx, polymarket_*, mailchimp_*). No camelCase mixing, but the inconsistency across styles makes prediction of names harder.

Tool Count1/5

The server is named Mailchimp but only 5 of 36 tools are Mailchimp-related; the remaining 31 tools cover unrelated domains (Pipeworx data lookup, prediction markets, memory, subscriptions). This extreme mismatch means the count is wildly inappropriate for the apparent purpose.

Completeness1/5

For a Mailchimp server, the surface is severely incomplete: only read operations exist (list/get audiences, campaigns, members) with no create, update, delete, send, or automation tools. The Pipeworx tools are comparatively rich but their presence does not fix the fact that the Mailchimp domain itself is a dead end.

Resources