Skip to main content
Glama

Movies

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

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the read-only and idempotent annotations, the description discloses the two execution pathways (SEC EDGAR/XBRL vs. grounded live sources), the exact verdict set, and crucially distinguishes 'could_not_verify' (failed check, not evidence) from 'unsupported' (no source found). This is critical behavioral context that significantly exceeds what annotations provide.

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 dense but well-organized: it starts with examples, then usage, routing, output, special notes, and replacement value in a single paragraph. It is on the longer side, but every sentence contributes needed context for this complex tool, and the critical caveats are clearly highlighted.

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 fully covers input (claim, optional tolerance), process (financial vs. grounded), output (verdict, value, citation, reasoning), and error semantics (could_not_verify vs. unsupported) without requiring an output schema. It even explains what multi-step process it replaces, giving the agent a complete mental model of the tool's behavior.

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 schema already contains full descriptions for both parameters (100% coverage), including detailed semantics for tolerance_pct. The tool description adds no new parameter-level meaning beyond referencing tolerance in the context of results, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 defines the tool as natural-language claim verification, provides concrete usage examples, and distinguishes its two processing paths (financial vs. grounded), making it distinct from sibling research tools. The verb 'validate' plus the resource 'claim' is specific, and the explanation of what it returns adds clarity.

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 explicitly states when to use it ('Use whenever the agent needs to check whether something a user said is factually correct') and positions it as a replacement for a 4–6 call pipeline, covering both when and how. Although no alternative tools are named, the description makes clear this is the go-to tool for any factual claim, making exclusions unnecessary.

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

All Movies 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

Many tools have heavily overlapping purposes—ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, and ask_pipeworx_grounded are nearly identical, while entity_profile, compare_entities, and recent_changes all pull overlapping company data. The server is named 'Movies' but only 4 of 35 tools relate to movies, making it impossible to infer what the tool set is actually for.

Naming Consistency2/5

Naming is a mix of verb_noun (search_movies, get_tv_schedule), bare nouns (remember, recall), brand prefixes (pipeworx_*, polymarket_*), and ad-hoc verbs (ask_pipeworx vs validate_claim). There is no consistent convention; even the pipeworx family uses ask_ vs grounded vs beta suffixes that don't follow a predictable pattern.

Tool Count2/5

35 tools is heavy for a single server, and for a 'Movies' server it is extreme overkill since the vast majority have nothing to do with movies. Even if the intent was a general data/betting server, 35 tools exceed the upper bound of the well-scoped range and would be better split into focused servers.

Completeness2/5

As a movies/TV server it is severely incomplete: there is no get_movie, no reviews, no watchlist, no person/actor search—only search_movies, search_tv_shows, get_tv_show, and get_tv_schedule. If instead the domain is Pipeworx data, coverage is better but still lacks mutation tools (e.g., no create/update for subscriptions beyond subscribe/unsubscribe) and the movie tools become dead weight.

Resources