Skip to main content
Glama

Metabolights

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. First observed

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the read-only, open-world, and idempotent annotations, the description reveals the dual verification paths (structured SEC EDGAR fast path vs. grounded pipeline), the specific verdict types, and the critical nuance that 'could_not_verify' means the check did not happen and must not be treated as evidence. It also discloses citation and reasoning outputs, providing substantial behavioral context.

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 relatively long but well-structured, front-loading example phrasings and a clear purpose statement before diving into implementation details. Every section adds value, including the important caveat about 'could_not_verify'. It could be tightened slightly, but it earns a strong score.

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 adequately explains return values: verdict types, actual values with citations, and reasoning. It also covers pipeline routing, call efficiency, and error semantics. Given the tool's complexity and lack of structured output, the description is remarkably complete and covers edge cases like 'unsupported' and 'could_not_verify'.

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?

The input schema already provides full descriptions for both parameters (claim and tolerance_pct) with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds only marginal parameter-related context (e.g., 'exact percent-delta math') without elaborating on parameter syntax or behavior, so it does not lift the score 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 identifies the tool as a natural-language claim verification service, with explicit use-case phrases like 'fact check' and 'verify the claim that…'. It specifies the resource (authoritative sources) and differentiates between financial claims via SEC EDGAR/XBRL and all other claims via a grounded pipeline, making its purpose unmistakable and distinct from sibling tools.

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 gives explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Use whenever the agent needs to check whether something a user said is factually correct.' It also notes that it replaces 4–6 sequential calls, implying an alternative manual approach. However, it does not explicitly name sibling tools or state when not to use it, so it falls short of full 5.

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

All Metabolights 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

B3.3/5.0
Disambiguation1/5

The vast majority of tools (e.g., ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_grounded, bet_research, polymarket_arbitrage, etc.) are unrelated to Metabolights and overlap heavily with each other in purpose. Only two tools (get_study and search_studies) are clearly distinct and relevant to the server's stated domain.

Naming Consistency2/5

Tool names are highly inconsistent, mixing snake_case (get_study, search_studies), camelCase (ask_pipeworx), and varied verb styles (e.g., validate_claim vs bet_research). No consistent pattern across the set.

Tool Count1/5

With 28 tools, the server is extremely overpopulated for its stated purpose (Metabolights). Only 2 tools actually pertain to metabolomics study access, while the remaining 26 are general-purpose or unrelated (e.g., bet_research, polymarket_edges), making the count highly inappropriate.

Completeness1/5

The Metabolights domain severely lacks completeness: only search_studies and get_study are provided, with no create, update, delete, or upload functionality. The server fails to cover essential operations for its supposed domain.

Resources