Skip to main content
Glama

Mast Nasa

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.

TDQS

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already mark it read-only and non-destructive, but the description adds crucial behavior: the meaning of could_not_verify vs unsupported, noting could_not_verify is not evidence and must not be presented as such. It also discloses that outputs include a verdict, grounded/structured actual value, and citation, and that tolerance_pct overrides claim-wording defaults.

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?

While long, the description is front-loaded with the core purpose and use case, and every sentence adds value—including error semantics and parameter tuning. It is dense and structured with an 'IMPORTANT for callers' callout, though it could be trimmed slightly.

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?

Without an output schema, the description fully covers return values (verdict enum, actual value, citation, reasoning) and explains failure modes (could_not_verify carries verification_error, unsupported means no source). The tool's complexity justifies the thoroughness, and no critical aspect is missing.

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?

The input schema already describes both parameters (100% coverage), and the description adds meaningful guidance: tolerance_pct can be set to 1–2 for hallucination detection and defaults to the claim wording capped at 5. It also clarifies the claim parameter with realistic examples.

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 natural-language phrases and states 'natural-language claim verification against authoritative sources.' It clearly defines the tool's scope (financial vs. other claims) and distinguishes it from generic search/ask tools by framing it as fact-checking with a verdict.

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 instructs 'Use whenever the agent needs to check whether something a user said is factually correct,' and clarifies that financial claims go through the structured EDGAR/XBRL path while other claims fall through to a grounded pipeline. It also notes it replaces 4–6 sequential calls, signaling when to prefer it over multi-step workflows.

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

All Mast Nasa 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

A3.5/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools have distinct purposes, but there is some overlap among ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_grounded, and deep_research, all of which query the Pipeworx database with different levels of structure. The detailed descriptions help differentiate them, but the overlap is notable.

Naming Consistency4/5

All tool names use snake_case consistently, which is good. However, the naming conventions vary: some are descriptive phrases (e.g., ai_visibility_check), others are verb_noun (e.g., list_subscriptions), and some are compound nouns (e.g., entity_profile). Lack of a single pattern reduces consistency slightly.

Tool Count3/5

34 tools is on the higher side for a single server, but it may be justified given the broad scope of Pipeworx data sources. However, the server name 'Mast Nasa' implies a focus on astronomy, yet only a few tools relate to that domain, making the count feel inflated and unfocused.

Completeness3/5

The tool set is comprehensive for the Pipeworx data platform, covering querying, grounding, entity resolution, comparison, subscriptions, and more. However, for the implied NASA/Mast domain, the surface is severely incomplete with only four astronomy-specific tools, leaving obvious gaps.

Resources