Skip to main content
Glama

Medicare Coverage

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. First observed

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already signal read-only, open-world, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds substantial beyond-annotation context: the two verification paths (SEC EDGAR vs grounded), the meaning of each verdict value, the distinction between 'could_not_verify' and 'unsupported', and the presence of verification_error with stage/detail. This is rich behavioral disclosure.

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 trigger phrases and use case, then covers behaviors and important caveats. It is long but every sentence earns its place, and there is no fluff or repetition. The length is justified by the complexity of the tool, though it could be tightened 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?

The description covers the full scope: what the tool does, the two verification routes, the return structure (verdict, value, citation, reasoning), and critical error semantics. It even explains the difference between 'could_not_verify' and 'unsupported' to prevent misuse. Given the absence of an output schema, the description carries the burden well and is complete.

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%, so parameters are already documented. The description adds meaningful nuance: it explains tolerance_pct's role in hallucination detection (set 1–2) and that the default is implied by wording, capped at 5. This goes beyond the schema's basic type/description, though not exhaustively.

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's purpose: natural-language claim verification. It provides explicit trigger phrases and scopes the tool to checking factual correctness, distinguishing it from sibling tools that focus on entity profiles, research, or Medicare data. The 'Replaces 4–6 sequential calls' line further differentiates it as a consolidated single-call alternative.

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.' This gives clear context for when to use it. However, it does not name specific sibling tools to use instead, nor does it list exclusion criteria (e.g., 'not for open-ended research'), so it falls short of a 5.

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

All Medicare Coverage 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
Disambiguation2/5

The server mixes Medicare-specific tools with many unrelated general-purpose tools (e.g., bet_research, polymarket_arbitrage, remember), and there are multiple similar ask_pipeworx variants. This makes it difficult for an agent to distinguish which tool is appropriate for a given task without confusion.

Naming Consistency2/5

Tool names follow no consistent pattern. Some use a medicare_ prefix with underscores, others use generic verbs like forget, recall, or compound names like ask_pipeworx, deep_research. There is no uniform verb_noun or noun_verb structure.

Tool Count2/5

57 tools is excessive for a server ostensibly focused on 'Medicare Coverage'. Many tools (e.g., bet_research, polymarket_edge_tracker, scan_dependency) are unrelated to Medicare and should be in separate servers, inflating the count and diluting focus.

Completeness4/5

The Medicare-specific tools cover a broad range: NCDs, LCDs, NCAs, enrollment, DME, Part D, hospital, outpatient, post-acute, and provider data. Minor gaps include Medicare Advantage (Part C) and Medicare Supplement, but the coverage is largely comprehensive.

Resources