Skip to main content
Glama

Monday

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

A4.4/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint), the description adds valuable behavioral context: it enumerates possible verdicts, explains the difference between could_not_verify (indicating a failed check with verification_error, not evidence) and unsupported (no source covers it), and describes the output components (actual value, pipeworx:// citation, reasoning). This deeply informs the agent of failure modes and return semantics, going well beyond the annotated safety profile.

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 justifiably so—each sentence serves a purpose, from lead-in examples to the critical 'IMPORTANT for callers' warning. It is well-structured with a clear flow. It could be slightly tightened but is overall efficient 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?

Given the tool's complexity (dual pipelines, tolerance math, verdict enumeration, error semantics), the description is thorough. It covers the return format, failure distinctions, and applicability, leaving no major gaps. Even without an output schema, an agent has enough to correctly interpret and act on results.

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?

Schema coverage is 100% for both parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add any additional explanation of claim or tolerance_pct beyond what the schema already provides; it only mentions "exact percent-delta math" indirectly. Thus it meets the minimum viable standard but doesn't enhance parameter understanding.

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 tool against authoritative sources, with specific verbs like "fact check" and "verify the claim that." It distinguishes itself from siblings by describing the two pipelines (SEC EDGAR for financial, grounded for non-financial) and explicitly noting it replaces 4–6 sequential calls, setting it apart from generic Q&A tools like 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?

The description explicitly states "Use whenever the agent needs to check whether something a user said is factually correct," providing clear usage context. It also gives guidance on the two internal pathways (financial vs. non-financial). However, it doesn't explicitly exclude alternative tools for non-claim queries, so it's clear but not exhaustive on when NOT to use this tool.

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

All Monday 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

A3.7/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

The set has several overlapping tool clusters. ask_pipeworx and ask_pipeworx_beta are explicitly identical in behavior, ai_visibility_check and scan_competitor_ai_presence overlap heavily, and polymarket_arbitrage, polymarket_edges, polymarket_edge_tracker, and polymarket_fill_risk all target opportunity-finding/fill-checking on prediction markets. While individual descriptions are detailed, an agent could easily pick the wrong tool among these near-duplicates.

Naming Consistency2/5

Naming is inconsistent across the surface. The monday_* and polymarket_* prefixes are consistent within their subgroups, and ask_pipeworx_* forms a family, but the rest mix verb_phrase (validate_claim, compare_entities, discover_tools), noun_phrase (entity_profile, recent_changes, suggest_questions), and bare verbs (remember, forget, recall) with no unifying pattern. This makes it hard to predict tool names.

Tool Count2/5

At 36 tools, the surface is overloaded. The Monday.com integration alone only needs 5 tools, and the remaining 31 are a sprawling research/meta-toolkit. Many of these could be consolidated (e.g., ask_pipeworx and ask_pipeworx_beta, or the several polymarket scanners), so the count feels inflated beyond what the server's core purpose requires.

Completeness3/5

The data-research and monitoring side is thorough, covering querying, grounding, comparison, profiling, entity resolution, subscriptions, memory, and feedback. However, the Monday.com integration is incomplete: it offers create/list/get/search for items but no update or delete operations, and no board creation or modification. This leaves the Monday workflow with dead ends.

Resources