Skip to main content
Glama

mathjs

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

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/ideal conditions, and the description adds valuable context: the two routing paths, the verdict enum, that could_not_verify means the check did NOT happen and is not evidence, and that unsupported means no source exists. It also mentions verbatim evidence with pipeworx:// citations. This goes well beyond the annotations and provides essential behavioral nuance.

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 longer than typical but every sentence serves a purpose: example queries, usage trigger, routing logic, return details, and a critical caller caveat. It is front-loaded with query examples and the core purpose, and the structure flows logically. Slightly verbose but no waste.

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 no output schema, the description thoroughly explains return values (verdict types, actual value, reasoning), error semantics (could_not_verify with verification_error), and the fact that it replaces 4–6 sequential calls. It covers both financial and non-financial paths, making it fully complete for an agent to select and invoke correctly.

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?

Schema coverage is 100% for the two parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds extra meaning by giving real-world examples for claim and explaining how tolerance_pct overrides the implied wording tolerance, including a concrete use case for hallucination detection. This pushes it above baseline.

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 the tool verifies natural-language factual claims against authoritative sources, with explicit query examples ('Is it true that…', 'fact check'). It distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on claim verification and even explains the two internal routing paths (SEC financial vs. grounded pipeline), making its 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 says 'Use whenever the agent needs to check whether something a user said is factually correct,' providing a clear trigger. It also explains the behavior for different claim types and the meaning of could_not_verify vs. unsupported. However, it does not name alternative tools to use instead, so it falls short of full exclusions guidance.

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

All mathjs 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, especially the ask_pipeworx family (4 variants) and polymarket tools (5 variants). The memory tools (remember/recall/forget) and subscription tools also overlap with each other. While descriptions provide some differentiation, the sheer number of similar tools makes it hard for an agent to quickly distinguish the right one.

Naming Consistency2/5

Most names use snake_case, but there is no consistent verb_noun pattern. Some are verb_noun (ask_pipeworx, resolve_entity), some are noun_noun (bet_research, entity_profile), and others are adjective_noun (recent_changes, pipeworx_trending). The naming is arbitrary and doesn't follow a predictable convention.

Tool Count2/5

At 33 tools, the count is high but not extreme for a broad data platform. However, the server is named 'mathjs', implying a math focus, yet only 2 tools (evaluate, convert_units) are math-related. The vast majority of tools belong to a completely different domain (data lookups, prediction markets, subscriptions), making the count inappropriate for the server's apparent purpose.

Completeness1/5

For a math server, the tool surface is severely incomplete—missing basic operations like plotting, equation solving, calculus, etc. For the actual data integration and prediction market functionality, the set is more complete, but the server name misleads. The mismatch between name and content makes the completeness score very low based on the implied domain.

Resources