Skip to main content
Glama

Mitre Cwe

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

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The description goes well beyond the readOnlyHint and idempotentHint annotations by explaining the semantics of each verdict, especially the critical distinction between could_not_verify and unsupported. It also discloses behavioral traits like the two processing paths, citation inclusion, and reasoning output, with an explicit warning about misusing could_not_verify.

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 long but well-structured, with each sentence delivering specific useful information (triggers, use case, financial vs. non-financial routing, verdicts, error handling, and the efficiency benefit). It's not redundant or padded, though it could be slightly tighter for optimal agent reading.

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?

Despite lacking an output schema, the description thoroughly explains the return values, verdict meanings, error states (verification_error), and processing pipeline. It covers edge cases like unsupported claims and the distinction from could_not_verify, making it complete for a complex tool with no structured output documentation.

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 both parameters (claim, tolerance_pct), so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining that tolerance_pct overrides the implied tolerance, noting the default cap of 5, and giving concrete examples for the claim parameter, effectively enriching the schema-provided semantics.

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 function: natural-language claim verification against authoritative sources. It provides example trigger phrases and differentiates between financial claims (SEC EDGAR + XBRL) and all other factual claims, distinguishing it from sibling tools like deep_research or ask_pipeworx.

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' and explains the automatic routing for different claim types. It doesn't name alternatives or explicitly state when not to use it, but the guidance is clear and actionable.

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

All Mitre Cwe 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

Only 7 of 38 tools are specific to CWE (weakness, children, parents, etc.), while the rest are generic data query, prediction market, and utility tools. This creates massive overlap and confusion: an agent looking for CWE data will encounter many unrelated tools with similar generic names like ask_pipeworx, deep_research, etc.

Naming Consistency2/5

CWE-specific tools use a consistent noun pattern (weakness, children, parents, etc.), but the remaining tools mix snake_case, camelCase, and no clear pattern (e.g., ask_pipeworx, bet_research, generate_llms_txt). The overall naming is inconsistent.

Tool Count1/5

38 tools is far too many for a CWE server. The vast majority are unrelated to CWE, making the tool surface bloated and unfocused. A concise set of ~5-10 CWE-specific tools would be appropriate.

Completeness3/5

The CWE-specific tools (weakness, category, view, children, parents, descendants, relationship) cover the main use cases for querying the CWE database. However, the server also includes many unrelated tools that dilute its purpose, making it feel incomplete for someone strictly needing CWE data.

Resources