Skip to main content
Glama

Mastodon

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

A4.4/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the read-only/idempotent annotations, the description adds critical nuance: it defines the verdicts, explains the special meaning of could_not_verify (not evidence) and unsupported, and discloses the internal pipeline routing. This is significant behavioral context that prevents misuse.

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 densely informative, starting with trigger phrases and a clear purpose, then covering usage, output, and caveats. While long, each sentence contributes value, though it could be slightly tightened in the middle.

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 explains return values: a verdict from the enumerated list, the actual value with citation, and reasoning. It also clarifies the two edge-case verdicts (could_not_verify vs unsupported), which is essential for correct interpretation.

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?

Both parameters are already described in the schema with 100% coverage, so the description adds little beyond mentioning 'exact percent-delta math' for financial claims. The schema's tolerance_pct explanation is more detailed than the description's, so the description does not need to compensate.

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 defines the tool as 'natural-language claim verification against authoritative sources' and provides a specific verb ('fact check'/'verify'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on returning a verdict with grounded evidence, 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?

Explicitly states 'Use whenever the agent needs to check whether something a user said is factually correct.' It also describes two usage paths (structured SEC EDGAR vs grounded pipeline) but does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclusions, so it lacks full comparative guidance.

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

All Mastodon 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
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools have clearly distinct purposes, but there is some overlap between research-oriented tools like ask_pipeworx and deep_research, and between entity_profile and compare_entities. Descriptions help differentiate them, so overall an agent can tell them apart.

Naming Consistency2/5

Tool names are inconsistent, mixing snake_case (ask_pipeworx, list_subscriptions) and camelCase (bag_research, compare_entities). There is no uniform naming pattern, which can be confusing.

Tool Count2/5

With 35 tools, the set is too large for a server named 'Mastodon'. Only a few tools are actually Mastodon-related (e.g., get_account, get_timeline), while the majority are PipeWorx tools unrelated to the core purpose.

Completeness1/5

As a Mastodon server, the toolset is severely incomplete: it lacks basic social media operations like posting statuses, following/unfollowing, and engaging with content. The name misrepresents the actual capabilities.

Resources