Skip to main content
Glama

microlink

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

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, non-destructive), the description adds crucial behavioral context: the two processing paths, the verdict set, the citation format, and the explicit warning that could_not_verify means the check didn't happen and must not be treated as evidence. There is no contradiction with annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is dense and well-organized: query triggers, purpose, usage, routing, return value, and an important caveat. Every sentence contributes meaningful information, and the formatting with bullets and a highlighted 'IMPORTANT' note improves scanability. It is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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 carries the full burden of explaining return values, and it does so thoroughly: lists the possible verdicts, mentions actual value with citation and reasoning, and clarifies the two ambiguous verdicts (could_not_verify and unsupported). It also explains the high-level internal routing, making the tool's behavior predictable for callers.

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?

Since schema description coverage is 100%, the baseline is 3. The description does not substantially add to the parameter documentation; it only references the claim and tolerance concept in passing. The examples in the schema already capture the meaning of both parameters, so the description neither improves nor harms.

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 triggers and states 'natural-language claim verification against authoritative sources' — a specific verb+resource. It clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings by defining its scope (verifying factual claims, with a special fast path for company-financial claims) and by noting it replaces 4–6 sequential calls.

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 gives explicit usage guidance: 'Use whenever the agent needs to check whether something a user said is factually correct.' It also explains the routing between the SEC EDGAR/XBRL fast path and the grounded pipeline, and clarifies handling of special verdicts like could_not_verify, which helps avoid misuse.

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

All microlink 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

A4/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools have clearly distinct purposes with detailed usage guidance, but the several query entry points (ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research) overlap conceptually and require careful reading to select correctly. Notably, ask_pipeworx_beta currently behaves identically to ask_pipeworx, which could cause confusion.

Naming Consistency3/5

Tool names mix verb-first (remember, resolve_entity) and noun-first (entity_profile, deep_research) patterns, with some using prefixes like 'polymarket_' or 'ask_pipeworx'. While all are snake_case and readable, the lack of a single consistent convention makes the set feel less coherent than it could be.

Tool Count3/5

33 tools is on the high end for a single server, though the broad domain (data retrieval, prediction markets, memory, subscriptions, web scraping) justifies much of the sprawl. Still, the count borders on heavy, and some tools could potentially be consolidated (e.g., the ask_pipeworx variants).

Completeness4/5

The toolset provides comprehensive coverage for its core data querying and analysis domain, with lifecycle coverage for memory and subscriptions. Minor gaps exist, such as no generic 'fetch page content' tool despite having get_metadata and take_screenshot, but these do not undermine the primary functionality.

Resources